Hi, I really enjoy reading the comments in this thread, but as noob here I felt intimidated to answer.Welcome...
By the way your post is interesting, wise and truthful....
Thanks....
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.
Showing 50 responses by mahgister
I think that somewhere here is the explanation of how people perceive music and why the measurements do not coincide with the subtle perception, even in a rough approximation.You are right on the spot... I read the first article and orderred the book immediately.... I have a great intuition for books... My job for almost 40 years was advising students in all fields about reading method which could help them in their works... I was waiting for this book without knowing it and cannot thank you enough for the article.... It is you who put the link here.... The deep enigma of language is also connected to the way we perceived sound speech... And the modern approach in structural phonology has exhausted his fecundity....We need to understand the relation between sound speech and musical sound to solve the enigma... This is why i am excited.... |
Essien’s main contribution is that he discovered the unsolvable problems in understanding of sound and explained what they are:I ordered the book immediately... The reason is this is a so important unsolved problem that the writer is garbage or a genius... I opted for genius because his reflection remind me of the controversy between Newton and Goethe.... Goethe founded the neurophysiology of perception and the phenomenology of perception against the metaphysical corpuscular theory of Newton and his reduction of the color phenomena to a general mathematical theory of optic... In the same way against the acoustical physical mathematical physical theory of sound, Essien with many experiments argue for a forgotten mechanical invariant that could explain pitch perception, which is not explained nor explanable by the reduction of pitch to a pure mathematical Fourrier analysis...He called his theory the body-image theory of sound... Anyway nobody understand what sound is and how it is perceived, this is a beginning ....This fact is in all the serious litterature about sound.... We can use sound and mathematically use it in technology but understanding a phenomenon is not using it.... Then all engineer think they understand sound for sure especially with the Helmholtz Fourrier box tools...No problem.... But technology is NOT science.... I dont know if Essien is a genius or a deluded acoustician but i know for sure that Ansermet is right and is a genius and explain very well why pitch is not reducible to mathematical acoustic .... Then..... If i had not read Ansermet analysis 30 years ago i will had never bought Essien book.... The very deep connection to speech production and perception are for me the most important fact... If Essien is right the relation between phonology and linguistic are completely changed ....And anyway Ansermet, the great maestro author of perhaps the most important book about music , criticized rigourously the reduction of the musical sound and pitch to a pure acoustical mathematical approach and even had inversed the mathematical concept of logarythm creating a new qualitative concept more apt to describe the nature of the phenomenon .... Ansermet was lacking what is in Essien, and Essien dont know the deep philosophical analysis of Ansermet.... The 2 are complementary and need one another....Ansermet was one of the great maestro but a philosopher of the highest order.... It is evident that Essien book is pure garbage for some because apparently it contradict all of what is "known" but in fact redirect completely the sound hearing theory if his experiments made sense...The survival of Essien through the academic system and the final obtention of his doctorate in spite of his complete unorthodox theory speak volume...It takes him very long to succeed... I bet for it and will read the book .... I am certain that our friend here CANNOT think positively about something apparently so contradictory with what all he has learned... It is a redirection of the european musical theorizing in rethinking the pythagorean paradigm with a new mechanical invariant linked to pitch perception that will illuminate the sound phenomenon... I am excited.... I was waiting for this book without even knowing it.... Or all the book is garbage.... There is no other alternative: garbage book or genius.... I will see... |
When there is no friendship there is only waste of time.... Great thread here ! The difference of opinions about cable direction are no more an obstacle .... «When the pie portions are gone the center stay forever» - Groucho Marx Platonician meditation 🤓 «Tea is gone but kettle stay»-Chico Marx «Unlike sound, music has no prefered direction»- Harpo Marx «Wrong! melody is time itself» -Gummo Marx |
Tube dac/ versus S.S. dac, an already old war.... 😁 Why not defining good sound not by analog/digital war, or tube/S.S. ridiculous war, but by acoustical principles and experience in listening real natural timbre, beginning with the human voice ? Why the result of Anton in reproduction of old 78 Rpm vinyls are so good? Why are we together able to recognise this fact? Because who are "programmed" by history, habit and evolution to recognize voice timbre... Think about it... THEN we must forget analog tube/digital S.S. wars....Different implementations are different precisely.... And acoustic control could overpower anything if we bought a good tube amplifier or a good S.S. amplifier, or a good turntable or a good dac to begin with.... ACOUSTIC in neuro-acoustic science and in room acoustic is the key to audio.... Even for " our friend" who worked precisely in this field or near it but who erroneously think that human hearing could be reduced to a tool minus the consciousness.... Or perhaps even not minus consciousness via A.I. I dont know him enough to speak for him.... 😊 |
Basically, you not actually making a point, you are just using about 10 logical fallaciesYou make me laugh here....Sorry...And you are like the virgin pure of any of these sinsn ? You never accused a doctorate researcher you never studied, accusing him to be incompetent even if i proved with a recent book that what he claimed was right ? Do you realize that some people read this thread also and some can think by themselves? By the way like i said in a preceding post i never question your competence in audio at all , i question your judgement here.... It is not the same thing..... I will resume all i say in 2 words and suppress any arguments to the simplest one...Then all these 10 logical fallaciies you accused me of using will collapse into one argument only and more, to only a question? Numbers are not perception and never will be.... Are you ok with that? Yes or no ? But beware if numbers are not equal to perceptions even if the designed tool can help to mimic perception then perhaps the claim of Anton COULD make sense...Some perception may exist without for NOW any electronical or electrical known explanations....And perhaps none at all if we appeal to only electrical tools... Then asking for a blindtest on the spot instead of being sincerely interested in this experiment and trusting his sincerity is just a way of dismissing it without listening at all.... Then using the mother of all the fallacies i will use the sophism.... I will give you an example of sophism... All perception must be reduced to a measurable fact Anton claim he listen difference non measurable, Then is is impossible...His claim is an illusion or a fraud... The problem is that the premises are false...Or impossible to demonstrate... Why not listening him and discussing instead of saying what he say is complete gibberish? |
I am sorry that people here refuse to learn even a modicum of relevant physics or engineering so that they would understand that the claims they make are easily dismissed.Nobody refuse to learn here.... You are a master at strawman argument..... Anton specifically acknowledged FROM THE BEGINNING that there is no detectable measuring signs of a change in the wire for in in his own experience also like you claim....Contrary to the cables marketers.... You accuse him of libel... He wait with us for the fact you alleged and accused him.... Your only argument is accusing him of bias or hallucination.... No problem here if you would have not invade the thread claiming with absolute affirmation the absolute superiority of measures over perception which is a falsity anyway.... This confuse two definition of "accuracy" and reduce them to only one..... Then you cannot treat him like a cable marketer because he said the same thing than you about the impossiblity to measure this change contrary to cable marketer who try to justify it by eelectronical new discoveries...... He claim only that human perception is not reducible to numbers which is a trivial fact of science.... Who is ignorant? But your personal choice does not negate the hard cold facts of the physics that define the problem no matter how much deflection with unrelated thing Mahgister brings up.All i said in my preceding post is related to your own bias that measuring electronical tools could detect any change in a directed wire which is undemonstrable but a supposition, is a professional habit so to speak, and the confusion of this habit with reality: audible human perception or experience, this professional habit is also a bias...By some engineering use of some known laws it is not measurable NOW....It is all you could say....Nothing more.... Psychoacoustic for example CANNOT BE REDUCED TO PHYSICAL ACOUSTIC... By his design hubris it is usually a possible goal and dream in engineering...There is no problem with this except if the creator confuse his design with reality completely.... The fact that you can use a complex design gear to reproduce sounds does not prove that the ears/brain work like your gear.... Train dont create clouds.... Neither perception is ever reducible to measuring tool results only....Save in A.I. dream.... What you call your technical understanding of the problem is precisely the "hubris" of technology power in mingling and confusing map and reality... After that you accused others of bias excluding yourself of any claim you made about the absoluteness of your own understanding, like pretending that pitch perception is reducible to physical frequencies.... It is not and i proved it with reflexions coming from an up to date known researcher .... Because you have called Essien, an unknown researcher a crook or a fraud or incompetent....Essien was saying the same thing: pitcp human perception is not explained by frequencies computer programming... «The clouds in the sky are not produced by train vapor engine even if their mechanism reproduce some aspect of nature»-Anonymus Smith |
We dont learn music simply by hearing it.... When i was listening to Bach "Art of the fugue" when i was young i think at first hearing that it was boring and heavy music.... I learn to hear it with my "feeling"... Feeling and playing it also help perception to increase a notch....I discover behind Bach an astonishing emotion that communicated to me the meaning behind this "boring" music and an access to his syntax...Then i listened to it and perceived it completely differently indeed... It is my favorite work perhaps to this day..... I own many interpretations... We dont perceive sound only by passively hearing them without emotion or sense feeling.... Sounds can have meaning in them, like the fall of many wooden cubes on the floor could create a melody... We learn to perceive pitch .... And sound coming from tapping can reveal if 2 invisible spheres are cavernous or not with a hidden hole inside....If we add an orifice to one of these sphere the sound of the 2 spheres could not stay identical either....If we modify the size of the aperture of one of the orifice the sound will also differ....Then if we modify the shape of the aperture we will have another sonic information... If we change the material composition of the spheres it will be the same thing , the sound will inform us differently.... Then experimenting with "directed wiring" is something we must learn to do like experimenting with information linked to spheres of different size,shape, with hole,orifice, materials, etc Sound is not for human ONLY an external purely physical acoustical phenomenon.... It is a psychoacoustical phenomenon whose meaning is testimony of the participation of the whole human being to the phenomenon... In psychoacoustic, acoustic and physical measures are always linked and CORRELATED to the neurophysiology of perception but also to the discerning power of the will/mind/feeling of the human being and not only to a reduced modelization of the brain like a simple computer... Pitch perception is a complex phenomenon for example always in debate and very deep ... No artificial tool reproduction will by itself "explain" pitch perception, no more than an artificial heart explain the heart..... Technology is linked to science but is not by itself science.... MAP IS NEVER THE TERRITORY.... But any general need only a map to make his point in a battle.... This will not prove that the general was knowing all that is important and meaningful about the territory....Claiming that the victory in the batlle was a "proof" that the general has known ALL there is to know about this territory reveal a very common bias: confusing map and territory and mingle and confuse them to make a point.... A model is only a model , it is an artefact not reality.... Or we must believe like some wanted us to do that consciousness will be reduced to A.I. and the virtual technological new world created by men will be "better" than the one with inhabit... Do you think seriously that virtual reality could replace reality? Transhumanist believe that....They are very clever users and creators of new tools but philosophically idiots....They are in a cult.... Some very clever even think that we can recreate life evolution with a complex series of algorythm .... To this day no man on earth understand the prime numbers distribution....Even if our most sophisticated tool in the internet are linked to coding with primes... Just few years ago a new fact about primes was discovered and let mathematician flabbergasted....Prime has "BIASES" contrary to the statistical random hypothesis about them which our most successful tools to study them ask for to begin with.... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peculiar-pattern-found-in-random-prime-numbers/ |
Biases are NOT and NEVER are a trivial fact, biases are complex and they are from different sources and could be positive or negative, eliminated, learned, reinforced,conscious, unconscious, innnate or not and transmitted like disease....And this is precisely because of that they also apply to disclaimers....If it was a cable pretense on the market it will be easy to put it on test.... But here it is SOMETHING ELSE.... Explaining any new experience and dismissing it on the basis of an alleged bias IS SOMETIMES trivial and cannot explain anything ESPECIALLY like in this case if the new experience was itself learned, and "blackboxed" already itself by one or many persons involved... Then invoking trivially a bias is simply dismissing something on the spot and itself reflecting a bias, refusing to considerate anything further and excluding any further experiments and discussion which will derange a "status quo" or a belief or an acquired knowledge.... Blindtest is before being a "public" test a private one.... This is call "blackbox" experiment...Anton has already take many blackbox tests by himself and with others ....He is not alone with this experiment.... Absence of openness and arrogance are for me the only explanation of this easy dismissal attitude... Anton has no cable to send here.... Then no public rigorous blindtest is possible before we take him seriously and stop insulting intelligence and host.... You cannot test for pitch hearing someone who never learned pitch before ......Is it not simple to understand? The bias at play here is not necessarily an "illusion" associated with a cable.....It could be a learned bias revealing something about reality.... Like the creation of a musical instrument was in ancient times.... Personally i had no opinion, except openness...Call that "credulity" but without this no new phenomenon could never be considered....I called it trust in people.... You can dismiss someone who will propose here a "new" cable with miraculous property....I will understand your skepticism... But Someone with great dedication and work behind him could not be treated like someone with nothing save pretenses about a marketted cable....It is very simple to test a cable .... Here it is another thing.... Save for those reducing anything to the only meter they own ..... |
You seem to be under the impression that unless you understand something, it isn’t true. How arrogant.You are about right with this claim.... BUT not with this one... You’re not an engineer and you most certainly do not have any experience with electronics.If you read his posts you will discover and i know it because i have discussed with him harshly some time but with excitation also, that he is one of the most competent in electronic audio here... Then insulting is not the right way.... For sure he is arrogant but incompetent he is not, sorry... Truth matter...... The OP asked a legitimate question.Yes and more than legitimate because his site demonstrated a dedication and seriousness very rare... This thread is one of the most interesting one because of the questions asked by the OP.... alas! even if our friend is more than competent he is like all of us mortals very susceptible to his own blindness spot....And more susceptible than most because precisely of his higher competences.... Things are not simple .....People are most of the times not totally bad or good, not even always totally right or totally wrong ....Someone could be right on some aspect of the same question and wrong on some other aspects... We must think...... |
A blind test has nothing to do with statisticthe CONTEXT where blindtest are the most used is in the pharmacological industry...--> then statistical meaning provide a value to the blindtest methodology... I only need to test that 1 person blind to refute their claim.Precisely i never negate the utility of blindtest i ONLY affirm that it make sense for small audible change....For one person working in a blackbox situation for example...... BUT there is no scientific validity associated to a blindtest without a statistical significant number of subject... In the case of a " learned bias" like in the experiment of Anton a simple improvised blindtest cannot prove anything ... The reason is simple: you cannot ask to someone to be test for a bias he has not learned first.... Then to test a learned bias we must construct first a tube amplifier with directed wiring... And we must learn to LISTEN to the audible difference which is at stake.... A directed wiring amplifier is not a Ted Denney cable...We must work with one right amplifier first, and second we must LISTEN to it and learn about HOW to listen....Aftet that, a single blindtest for the user by the user is possible ( blackbox situation)... and ONLY after all that a general public blindtest is realizable...Do you understand this simple series of orderly event and fact? I dont think you understand this because in a past discussion i remember that i cited wikipedia to prove that you have not understood the complex concept of "bias" ....For you it was the innate subjective factor making human prone to illusion... But a Bias can be learned and it is something that can make man able to perceive something deeper also.... Then the difference between the 2 types of bias ask for a different preparation before a blindtest.... Your main tac-tic is to First accuse somebody to be ignorant after that distorting what he has said and finally simplifying all toward your point.. You answer NO ONE OF THE TEN POINTS i argue about in my last post save the only one easy to distort... You are pitiful.... i understand that you are done with me because it is too much work for you to read all the references i give and too complicated to refute real fact... Stay with some aspect of Maxwell equation and dont go out....You will be safe... At least now you have learned with me that psychoacoustic is not reducible to acoustic nor to any measuring tool either... It is not necessary to thank me.... |
A clue for your homework: More Knowledge always increase the mystery... But More Technology may blind us about the mystery... why is it so? You are so arrogant i cannot resist to be arrogant myself with you.... but think about my question and answer it if you can think again at your "old" age.... If your answer is the right one i will offer you some pu-erh tea... 😊 |
From an inexperienced and uneducated position, it may appear bad faith or a sophism. To someone with experience and knowledge, it is simply self evident, like jumping off a building is bad for you. Every single thing you have posted comes down to special pleading.I know very well that you are intelligent then what it is? Lack in reading analysis basic understanting? Read your sentence i just put above....read it again... NOTHING CAN CHANGE A SOPHISM INTO A TRUTH, or a well articulated reasoning...NOTHING.... After that, you add if not a lie a complete distortion : every post i wrote is supposed to be a "special pleading" about what? FACT DONT NEED SPECIAL PLEADING..... - About the fact that " musical timbre" is not a taste or a subjective color only, like you have pleading against turntable afficionados to defend the supposed superiority of accurate bits? -About the fact that any recording process is a trade-off where no perfect timbre recording exist? and we need not only a source but a psychoacoustic control to recreate timbre perception ? It is a fact... -About the fact that "imaging" perception in a room acoustic is more complex than what you were describing about recording and volume and speakers positioning and speakers specs? it is after this discussion that i created my "mechanical equalizer" reading about psychoacoustic to make my point... You wrote to me after that that the results i gained with my Helmholtz device was an illusion, a deception.... Very comic.... -About the fact that perception of pitch is not explained actually by reducing it to frequencies? It is a fact... -About the fact that Essien was right about his claim that the same debate in psycho- acoustic like 2 hundred years ago continue today? I even give many modern references about this FACT... -About the fact that the brain is not a computer and human perception could not be reduced to any artefact or tool? it is a fact agreed upon by many great scientist in all fields.... -About the fact the the map (tool) is never and could never be the territory( human brain/body) ? It is a methodological fact and not only a simple fact .... -About the fact that blindtest is not a circus but a serious STATISTICAL method then it makes no sense to test any other thing in audio than borderline audible change...Blindtest improvised with few people cannot prove or disprove anything... It is a fact.... Blindtest is a STATISTICAL tool ...Or a simple way for an individual to test a borderline small change nothing more... -About the fact that BIAS are a highway with 2 directions not only your favorite one, and all bias are not equal? it is a fact.... -About your stubborn habit to distort anything that someone could say and twisting it to a ridiculous proposition, like taking anton experiments to be a pure bias, when it is not, a string of experiments with many other people implicated cannot be explained like a temporary deception with an audio cable.... I will stop here i am tired and there is other sophism of you i forgot in the last discussion one month ago.... You never answer to argument if there is no precise electrical knowledge because it seems you understand Maxwell basic ....You are unable to think out of a known equation...Sarcasm is not philosophy of science.... And read some new book, materialism is a dead body.... My post are not a "special pleading" but only about an evidence: human are not machine and sorry but save for more powerful technology we know nothing almost about the universe....Our big improvement in the last centuries is precisely that we are more conscious of our ignorance than in the past....Guess why yourself ? it will be a practice in thinking.... |
You accept that you will die jumping off a tall building because to you, it is very obvious you will reach a high rate of velocity before hitting the ground, and based on other examples of people hitting immovable objects and dying, you accept that you are not special and you will die too.You cannot give lesson in logic to anyone my dear friend you use constantly sophism, using in your conclusions what is already in your premises, negating anything out of your vicious technological circle... Equating the act of jumping from a cliff with the act of pointing to someone the evident fact that there is more to hearing than what someone can measure in a wire is, if not bad faith or stupidity, at least a sophism... Read wiki to understand what it is... You NEVER aknowledge your error or simplification disccusing with me, about " timbre" neither about "pitch perception"... Even when i was evidently right....You prefer to call others crook or liars , Essien and a pro musician speaking about timbre... i even pointed to you specialized books for that indication... To no avail, your arrogance is more than anybody here can deal with... But i can think and read.... Your simplification and materialist blind alley is easy to spot... Awake yourself and instead of insulting the intelligence of others think about your own subject matter and field, audio, in a more enlightened way...I know very well that you are more knowledgeable than most in audio by the way , i am not stupid....But your understanding go not very far out of that... All human perception is not reducible to numbers... Is it difficult to understand? Dont be afraid you will not put yourself at risk in the border of a cliff...Reading Einstein like you say dont erased Newton...Respecting the transcendent aspect of perception dont put you at the mercy of ghosts either....save in your sophism... By the way if anton-stepichev was a dealer of cable arguing about marketing i will not be here.... I am interested by original experiments not by cables or sceptik ideology.... |
If you truly believe this, then go jump off the nearest tall building and see how it goes.Using sophism to negate someone experiments is one thing...like putting that on the same footing than cables sellers arguments.... Claiming false affirmation because of an ideology is another thing: pitch perception is only a subjective illusory fact reducible to frequency or objective acoustic for example and computerised by the brain ...This is simplification for the sake of an ideology...do you think all people are children here? Putting in mouth of adversary simplistic affirmation to debunk them easily after that is NOT THINKING.... It is ideology.... |
I never wrote only for you....But for the others readers ... You have entered this subject years ago already if i read correctly....You know electronics not me....And you listen yourself to your wires,not me... But i am interested by the consequences of this matter.... His meanings for philosophical research.... mahgister,For sure you can do what you want with my posts... Regards.... |
I think we have some marmalade in the fridge. An experiment for tomorrow night.Beware about the quantity: almost nothing.... Dont blindfold yourself here.... 😊😊😊😊😊😊 I must be too traditional when I see it as a sign of decline of civilization.I guess we are around the same age....I see a decline too.....But i myself ascend, thanks to my next book.... |
Tu as l' air de beaux esprit, mon ami! Merci très bien même... J’aime la complicité entre amis ici et j’écoute de la musique tout en lisant un article d’un auteur dont j’attend le livre demain, sur l’acoustique, qui me semble une révélation déjà... Merci pour ta sollicitude mon ami.... |
I will tread that for fresh cherries... But like in audio some slight difference in habit are a good thing for any exhange.... Perspective like portion of cake differ for each of us and even the taste, but the center of the pie is a common fixed point.... You are in Canada mahgister? Treat yourself to this: https://www.amazon.ca/Pu-erh-Organic-Fermented-Chinese-3-53oz/dp/B07Y1R838W/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&... Wow! what a wonderful gift.... thanks... Interesting by the way is this remark of a customer: " Only a teaspoonful of the broken up tea is needed for about half a litre." Then the 100 gram is a bargain for the price.... I imagine this god tea with the glupson almond cake recipe... I cannot think about a better duo indeed.... Yes i lived in quebec city.... |
If you drink a lot of tea, treat yourself to a temperature controlled kettle, unless all you drink is black tea. If you like green, white, Oolong, I can’t recommend one enough.Very good advice.... I concur.... You are a master of many trades out of audio.... i was guessing this about you already.... 😊 |
Their Earl Grey is a delight.I drink black tea to which i add a bit of orange marmelade... 😁😉😊 Yes back on topic... I apologize.... By the way the thin rope attaching the bag must be cutted because half of the time the twisting of the braids are in the wrong turn and the tea is bitter....No way to know for sure without measuring apparatus... We are on topic now my friend... We must pass a blindtest about that anyway.... Me i dont need being a "golden tongue".... I will not disclose the person name saying that compliment to me... «I am a gentleman or am I ?»- Groucho Marx 🤓 |
Try this...Wow! thanks glupson... I will pray my wife to cook them.... ouffff i read it now..... Their taste does not decrease with days even after a week.... This will be my argument to sell the idea to my wife.... 😊 |
I guess once the world realized that YOU of all people had read, approved, and were moved by Mandelbrot that it was inevitable his book would become “legendary....a milestone in science.”Speaking of a book reading event in his own life does not means that the writer assume that it was himself that will create the legendary status of the book... If you interpret my sentence otherwise it is because your intent is to insult me... You are an idiot if you think so, and i am no more insulted thinking about that in the few instants necessary to write my answer here .... i feel only pity.... I own average ears, average system but very well controlled at low cost in his working dimensions, but compared to yourself probably i own a less average mind than your own....I prefer to not insult freely and without reason someone with whom i never had an interaction before... Thanks for exposing your "magnificent" soul..... And to say something positive here, i will add that i discovered the book only because i read an article of Mandelbrot about the modelization of errors on phone line in a book about epistemology few years before his publication of "fractal objects"... This book is a work of art and one of my favorite of all time.... His legendary status was inevitable and save in your insane mind has no relation with my reading.... The name of people who are able to invent a new Geometry are indeed very limited in the history of mankind... Mandelbrot is one of them.... Thanks for your post anyway, i loved the book so much, it is a new occasion to speak about it.... Thinking about it the book of Mandelbrot was for me like a book about number theory written by Lewis Carroll... There is very few PURE mathematical book in this century that reach in 2 or 3 years cult popular status reading level book sellers....Astounding book....Everyone reading this book has his mind changed forever....Think about that....And contrary to many pure mathematical books almost everyone can read it and understanding it.... I wish my post will make some curious about this eternal masterpiece of book.... It is a book about geometry, the way we see thing and place them in spatial dimensions and localize them... When we read it we discovered that we have never seen in the right perspective ANYTHING that we are contemplated before... Stupendous... The book contain a mathematical description of holes in swiss cheese and stars in the sky, relating them with the same dimensional numbers... Is it not astounding? |
You may, just may, want to read the title of the thread you are posting in and consider whether your statement makes any sense at all? You have gone on and on about acoustics in a thread that is about cable direction,I apologize because you are right about that....But there is a link by the OP about hearing sound then.....By the way i approved your blindtest protocol in another thread.... I am not against blindtest i am against those who use it to harass any testimonies .... |
One day you will research how we determine how we determine the location of sound, front to back, and realize that what you describe, is at best illusory, heavily influenced by preconception, and if true, would cause all vocals to do this, whether that is in the original recording or not, and probably causes a lot of the instrument sounds to have a false location.Human perception is not illusory in the absolute sense... And for sure this files comes from an excellent studio recording where the singers walked and turn their head singing.... what i listen to was an acoustical recreation of what was the intention of the recording engineer....It is a theater play not static singing... For sure in many recording the instrument dont have a true location.... But my sound effect is not 2-d and lifeless.... That is the point... You can create all kinds of illusions for a given set of speakers, in a given room, with a given set of reflectors, diffusers, absorbers, that will work for one effect, on one recording and create chaos with anything else. This is not news, but can be fun.Sorry here your affirmation is not my expoerience ... All my recordings files are not in chaos they are more livelier 3-D and filled the room... This result by the way is not obtained by MAINLY and ONLY a balance between diffusive, reflecting, and absorbing surfaces BUT by my use with my "mechanical equalizer" and the locations very precise of the 32 tubes and pipes inhabiting my room and transforming completely the zones pressure distribution... I had the idea discussing with you in a disagrement that was a great luck for me when we argue about imaging concept.... You forgot? Anyway i cannot thank you enough for the discussion... |
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.I dont discourage blindtesting in SPECIAL occasion like some marketing affirmation about cables... But attacking people who spoke of their experience ALWAYS with mistrust because there is no blindtesting behind is not science it is ridiculous...It is more easy and practical to replicate their experience to verify than organize a rigorous and useless blindtest session...I replicate many "tweaks" without blindtest at no cost by the way.... I created my own "mechanical equalizer" with my ears, 32 tubes and pipes with orientable and adjustable necks, i fine tuned them like someone finetuned a piano...Do a piano tuner need to be blindtested? Results: the voices of singers comes from my back when the orchestra play behind the speakers in front of me in some recordings... The wood sound in the middle of my room and and the strings behind my speakers in my version of Bach orchestral suite... Who said 3-d sound OUT of the speakers is impossible filling ALL the room ? He is wrong... It is called psychoacoustic....It is also a science... Did i need blindtesting all my steps in the few weeks needed to fine tune them? Or for each embeddings controls i used in the last 2 years? No.... Save when occured some small audible change borderline case in some occasions thats all....My biases are there but an hallucination dissipate when you act on it, like a city mirage vanish itself when walking toward it... Simple... Biases are not only something to erase anyway, it is also in the case of learned musicians somthing to cultivate by the way....All biases are not equal... Advocating blindtest is interesting to assess statistical facts in the industry like pharmacology and erasing human biases or debunking or making publicity for a product.... Using it to debunk systematically ALL audiophiles claims and calling that science is sunday club scientism.....Thanks.... And anyway a rigorous protocol is usable ONLY in exceptional circonstance... Then using that for argument is childish saturday scout science... I will wait for an official blindtest for some cables with interest but dont call that science....Or call James Randi nobel prize in physics... Many products dont need blindtest to reveal their effect without doubts anyway...only a listening session... Dividing people between subjectivist and objectivist is pure stupidity... Not science.... It is astounding that people buy these useless distinction and argue about that.... Correlating measures with human perception in audio is a science called psychoacoustic..... Negating measures value is stupid.... More stupid perhaps reducing All there is to some measured known chosen parameters.... In the 2 case science is lost...Only technology need static facts, science need plastic brain.... Jonathan Swift already wrote about that centuries ago... He called that the big egg end party against the little egg end party.... |
I will stick with my initial analysis. Poorly supported conclusion based on false summaries of other works, that I suspect he does not even have the academic background in many cases to understand let alone comment on.You dont even know his basic affirmation... You have not read it... And you insult his intelligence without even knowing him... I am flabbergasted by your prejudices.... But i will mute myself for now... I have not study it enough either and i am not an audio specialist... but you dont seems to have a clue about what this writer want to adress in psychoacoustic.... Why pitch perception, an objective phenomenon with human endowed with perfect pitch perception, cannot be completely reduced to physics concept of frequency or explained by it...The writer use mechanical experiments to point what is lacking to the frequencies approach of Helmholtz to explain pitch perception...He also touch phonology/phonetic deep problems in language and this part interest me very much also.... I am not competent to gives an authorized opinion for sure.... I am not sure you are either, his affirmation and experiments goes on a complete other direction than orthodox research in psychoacoustic...And even Lord Kelvin explained to all that physics in 1900 was touching the end...He cannot fathom the Planck revolution to come... Then i dont doubt the competence in physics of Kelvin no more than your own competence in audio.... Anyway i will stay silent for the moment....And this thread is not about Sound but about direction in wires.... then... |
Ok i have nothing against you mapman... But contrary to you i am interested by the OP thread... Then perhaps i overreacted defending him.... But you cannot say that your intervention consisting in one word "gaslighting people" is an argument... Then i dont want to cause you discomfort but help me .... Gives us arguments... Anyway i apologize if i hurted you... I am too direct like you are yourself by the way..... Then put yourself in the OP shoes reading your posts.... |
I respect arguments not opinions throwing against someone intention like the OP or about a book no one has ever read... See how it works? your threating remark against my arguments are the logical continuation of your bashing intervention.... I try and tried to be positive.... Trashing a thread without arguments and worst lendin to the OP intention are not positive participation... |
The whole thing is a mess. I am with Mapman, I am sorry I wasted any time reading it.All your post is an opinion like mapman WITHOUT any reading or analysis of the book... Then... For mapman it was " innate knowledge ", i guess and i know that for you your opinion comes from "perfect" scientific formation coming with your education and works in audio...It is easy to spot reading your posts you are not like me an amateur... Then i will respect your opinion....not the opinion of mapman.... But i will read the book..... A very weak conclusion, not at all supported by evidence in the paperBy the way the book is 512 pages.... The author has obtained his doctorate at the Sorbonne in acoustic for a work and experiments that takes him decades because he was innovative so much in an Unorthodox direction to explain hearing process and sound and perhaps he is wrong but i will be surprized if he was a complete idiot.... Then refrain your judgement and wait for arguments...Or perhaps like mapman you enjoy innate knowledge and not only experience in the audio working field ? That will be interesting book because it is in the center spot of acoustic experience... By the way it is not USUAL to produce a doctorate at the Sorbonne or in any known institution contesting in an original way centuries of reasearch in acoustic, is it not? Then for this study , no innate knowledge or experience in audio will replace reading it.... I am guessing they were desperate for papers for the 2nd International Conference on Acoustics in Nigeria. Beautiful country, nice people, not well known for academic regour (note author is listed as independent researcher and no indication of peer review, which, is not uncommon at these conferences.)This is only prejudices and his doctorate is in acoustic from Sorbonne... even if it is not the center of the world of acoustic research they dont give a doctorate to a complete idiot.... I will pass your prejudices and read the book... I am interested by the links between phonology/phonetics, music, and acoustic, the book adress all that... |
The most surprising discovery then turned out to be that the metal string E has not only a conventionally "electric" directivity, like all other wires, but also a "mechanical" one! The violin sounds more precise and reach when the beginning of the string is on the side of the pegs. At the same time, the advantages and disadvantages of the sound of the string could be evaluated both by playing the violin and using the string as a wire.Very interesting... Then Essien experiments are pertinent to your subject matter indeed...It talk about this mechanical internal tension in the string... But the book is more about psychoacoustic fundamentals deriving from this than about wire...But there is a link for me... I will have the book in the next days... One thing is certain the book is non sense or very very important... I order it on the spot because i think it is an important book... |
The ops argument is a straw man. The article reference as described has nothing to do with wire direction. Just saying.The main experiment of the writer is about mechanical constraint on string and the difference between pitch perception and frequency... There is no direct link... But you are quick to qualify someone of rethorical abuse without knowing all that matter here... No direct link does not means no link.... Why did you like to oppose without any arguments save qualifying an interesting book not worth reading ... The book being a complete redifinition of the sound hearing experience, how do you know that no link exist at all? A total waste of time.Why do you think always that your expressed opinion about a book you dont know and dont plan to read is not a waste of times for us? Especially if the writer pretense is redefining the hearing problem...He is right or wrong nothing between the 2.... How it is easy to always think by binary modes... It is black and white... Subjectivist versus objectivist... Like condioned Pavlov dogs reacting.... You even LEND intentions to the OP which are not his own... The OP think and dont pretend to have answers.... i will LEND to you some intention that are probably more truthful than your own lending attibution to the OP: you like trolling....I prefer thinking.... Are you born with innate knowledge? |
Not in the sense of what is the cause. But thanks to Ted Denney we have what it sounds like.He is not the only one tough.... My Morrow cables are like that also...then thanks to Mr Morrow too....By the way advertising a product will polarize people... It is better to stay on the problem.... I think that the answer to the "why" will be a complex answer... The book suggested by the OP can be a piece of this puzzle... Anyway i ordered it... The book is so original that it is a revolution or complete non sense, nothing between the 2.... Very interesting and way more important than cable direction by the way..... It is the reason why i am so interested in this thread : this book and for sure the dedication of the OP to his search.... The question about which all the book revolve is what is sound? Nothing less than that... Is it not interesting? The author oppose 2 thousand years of research.... Then it is complete non sense but perhaps not.... It takes all his life to write this and it was a part of his doctorate experiments... This matter to me because sound is not only acoustical physics and psychoacoustic but also linguistic.... The mystery of being human is linked to language not only music and anyway the 2 are related by the 2 polarities in language: prosaic and poetic working modes, like also the brain polarities hemispheres... 😊 |
how uninformed I am.You reverse the facts here...I was asking to you a simple question: have you read the article recommended by the OP... simple.... It is you who judged the thread without knowing the article recommendeded by the OP to read... I was pointing only this fact... I dont insult people reading a thread without explaining my arguments... This is my point.... By the way i dont have any enlightened opinion about the difference in sound by the direction in wires or cables.... It is simple fact tough that the OP deserve respect because of his own efforts to understand... But in audio thread simple minds place always themselves in artificial warring sides like "objectivist" and "subjectivist" this is children play... I prefer thinking.... The last times i was discussing here with someone of a different perspective or opinions , was with audio2design... We were opposite... But he had many arguments and i learned so much with the discussion i created my " mechanical equalizer" because i have discussed with him... Then i like people even if we are not on the same boat, if they are able to discuss with arguments.... |
Not that this justified an answer but I’ve been studying these things for years. So I suspect my opinion is at least as educated as yours.If you read my post i did not oppose your opinion and mine... Like spitting contest... i was speaking about articles and a book suggested by the OP in this thread.... I read many articles of this writer have you? No but I am sure people will continue to tell us what we should be hearing. So much for trust your ears. Who came up with that ridiculous concept anyhow?How can something needing experiment could be ridiculous? A ridiculous fact or concept dont need any experiment... How can you ridiculized someone who ask for experiments with a well articulated reasons for that? I cannot , i dont know myself... But the book recommended is very interesting this is my point... I have one point of interest then ... You dont have any save the spitting reflex... |
An idea is not an amplifier... You can state your opinion about an amplifier without any need to justify... But an idea is not an object and you said without any REASON that this thread is bulshit.... You are not ALONE in this thread with someone, we are many and we wait for the reason why it is bulshit... The OP is sincere in his quest and dont merit insults... This is my point..... And try to study what is recommended before spitting something... Essien book is a doctorate about a fundamental fact.... Even if he is wrong the book is interesting... Then in my list of thread useful counts , save my discussion with audio2design, which give me great idea, this OP give the other important one... Then in the many years here these are the only 2 important posters i discuss with... This is my MOTIVATED opinion.... |
Essien also claims Ohm is flawed and Helmholz is just as wrong. Better toss those Resonators.Have you read anything? Essien only demonstrate in his own way what is a well known fact in psychoacoustic... Pitch is not reducible to frequency... Read wiki if you are not able to read a book.... «Pitch may be quantified as a frequency, but pitch is not a purely objective physical property; it is a subjective psychoacoustical attribute of sound.» Wiki |
If someone sold you directional wire, especially expensive directional wire and forgot to tell you which way is the right way, I’d find another more competent vendor.a directional cable DONT NEED to be expansive... Dont confuse a subject matter with marketing... Or maybe it just really does not matter? There is always something else one can find to obsess about.There are many neighbours mocking year genetic experiments obsession with peas when Gregor Mendel was living... Dont be a complaining neighbour even if Anton is not Gregor.... We must try to contribute to a thread.... Positively.... |
I am keeping tabs on threads these days....this one goes under "totally useless". That’s being kind. Gaslighting people is even worse than useless.Coming from Albert Einstein this remark will be a sign, but how could you decide for all of us,what is useless, useful, or simply interesting or anything between the two extremes? The tentation to insult people is too much attractive to the alternative, like reading an article or a book? i suggest to you to read Essien article suggested by Anton then your time will be valued coming in this thread you dare to despise in the name of all....I just buy it 50 bucks.... Then FOR MY own account of usefullness among all threads it is a very useful one.... Reading a book is more useful than readin insulting posts... Sorry.... |
anton_stepichev OP what have you read of Essien to this day? Which articles? I think that perhaps in Essien experiences with string internal variable force of tension is the beginning of an answer.... If pitch is not reducible to frequency because of this mechanical invariant linked to tension perhaps a string like a cable react differently affecting the sound result when the orientation of his constituants fiber are twisted in one direction or the other.... I will begin the book tomorrow if i am lucky....I have 9 articles of Essien +a chapter of the book..... |
Some don’t get it at all. Some sommeliers are sooooo good, and have studied so much that they can identify the sub region where a wine came from and when it was produced.What is surprizing is not what any humans can or could develop in the mastery of their own powers, sensation/perception, intuition, imagination, thinking concentration etc.... What is surprizing is the way some trust only their religious belief.... Guess which is the name of this new religion? It is not protestantism, Islam or orthodoxy or buddhism, no, this religion is the new one , the idolatry of technology and the confusion of the map with reality and now worst, the replacing of reality by animated maps....Walking idols like those of Boston dynamics.... It make me sad that some will name "luddite" someone who vouch for science over running technology, and not the opposite....Science is NOT only physics or biology by the way, it is way more complex and vast that this TV simplification.... In the long history of science we are at the borderline where the worker want to be the master.....Technology cannot by itself be the savior....It is a part of the problem when profit run the game ... Any civilized society must invest most of his eggs in the basket of education.... Where else? But we are not civilized, we never have been, we are powerful savage manipulated by hubris.... After Shakespeare, Goethe in his Faust and in his general works, take a deep look in the modern hubris at a level never renewed perhaps since.... But who understand Goethe? It is an obsolete poet for most....Few people know that Goethe was also a great scientist... Like Archimedes who waited more than one millenia to be understood by Newton and Leibnitz... This new religion i speak about is incompatible with Goethe thinking..... |