@millercarbon, lol)
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 anton_stepichev
djones51 djones51, you have not expressed any meaningful option. You said that this is a bias, and it means the same thing as BS. Read the question again. "...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." |
@djones51 Of course, there is a bias, but let’s still assume that not all people who use special audio wires are biased. That sounds too far-fetched) As for the tests - in order for them to be more or less indicative, in addition to the known requirements of psychophysics, it is necessary to take into account many additional factors: 1 - A person most confidently perceives the difference in the sound of wires only on his home system, the features of the sound of which he knows thoroughly. Тhis works as a Baxandall subtraction method. On an unfamiliar system, most often a person is lost, he needs some time to understand all aspects of the sound of the music of this system and still it will not be as accurate as during usual home tests. 2 - Not all systems with the same technical characteristics are able to clearly convey the difference in the reverse polarity of the wire. 3 - Of those who have not previously encountered the assessment of anomalous phenomena in audio, not all are able to immediately catch the difference, even if it is obvious to those who are pro in the topic. That is, the perception of subtle things must be brought up and nurtured, this process takes some time, sometimes years. 4 - The difference in sound is most obvious on old analog recordings - classical music and jazz, the subtleties of which are understood only by a small percentage of music lovers. 5 - On a revealing, structurally simple audio system, the wire may sound different even in the same longitudinal direction if certain rules are not followed. The list can be continued, but I think it is not for anything. In this situation, it is almost impossible to organize tests so that they simultaneously meet the existing subjective data and strict scientific requirements. Are there any other ideas besides bias? |
@turnbowm Here it is even more interesting, if of course you are really interested in understanding. |
@djones The problem is that we both can't prove our point using standard tests. They don't take too much into account, I wrote about it in my last answer to you. Besides, my question was about something else. If, after all, we agree that there are people who distinguish the sound of one wire from another, what exactly can they hear or feel? ps - this is from Essien's article: "Many observers wonder at the listeners' ability to extract recognizable temporal and intonational patterns from the seemingly chaotic acoustic signal... “Richly structured perception on the one hand vs various imperfections in production including a wide range of deviations from target norms as well as large scale intra and inter individual variation on the other.” For Wode, it is a paradox; for Bloothooft (1995) it is a mystery" |
@calvinandhobbes The drawing of the wire affects its sound, I checked it myself, I used jewelry dies. However, from the point of view of the electricity, no changes in the conductivity of the wire occur during drawing: ================================================ "Concern over cables is widespread, but it can be said with confidence that there is as yet not a shred of evidence to support it. Any piece of wire passes a sinewave with unmeasurable distortion, and so simple notions of inter-crystal rectification or “micro-diodes” can be discounted, quite apart from the fact that such behaviour is absolutely ruled out by established materials science. No plausible means of detecting, let alone measuring, cable degradation has ever been proposed." "The most positive proof that Subjectivism is fallacious is given by subtraction testing. This is the devastatingly simple technique of subtracting before-and-after amplifier signals and demonstrating that nothing audibly detectable remains." Douglas Self, Science and Subjectivism in Audio ================================================= |
@dletch Such an experiment is conducted to subjectively evaluate the "loudness" of the wire. First, the sound stage shift is detected, then the balance is restored using the volume control and the difference is measured. On a transparent system, the difference in "loudness" between some type of wires in such an experiment can reach several DB. Sure it is twilight zone for most people. |
@millercarbon Without doubt, every detail of the audio system is involved in the formation of its individual differences. I do not mention radio components because the study of its sound is unsuitable for generalizations since the properties of individual parts of each radio component are unknown, and the parts are randomly directed relative to each other. I think the only possible way to understand the nature of sound perception is to focus on studying a short piece of single-core wire. |
@mahgister I must thank you anton_stepichev very much for Essien article... Hi, Mahgister! The link to Essien was given by a person in another thread, I can't find who and where. We must both say thanks to him. I already read many articles from him in the last 2 days and i wait for his book coming in thursday I wonder how much deeper he reveals the topic in the book, let me know if there is something interesting on the topic of audio please. It also join to the deep thinking of Ernest Ansermet in musical meaning experience... Ansermet is a great conductor, though not my favorite. I didn't know he had books about music, either. Our life passes in a rush, where to find time for everything, it is not clear.. |
@millercarbon I think this hypothesis has problems. 1 - the characteristic sound of the wire is perceived almost independently of the sound volume of the system, even at the minimum volume, when the speaker cone practically does not move. This point in particular excludes the influence of vibrations, as the only cause that affects perception, which occurs in parallel with hearing. Apparently, there is something else besides the vibrations. 2 - the characteristic sound of the wire is perceived regardless of the level of noise and interference of the signal source, for example, on old shellac records, the level of interference often becomes equal to the level of the useful signal already at 4-5 kHz, everything above this threshold is one continuous interference. The question arises, where in this case can micro-information hide? |
@millercarbon This hypothesis also has drawbacks. The wire is heard equally well both as an acoustic cable and as an IC, especially the difference is clearly noticeable in tube amps. A tube is controlled by grid voltage, there is no current in the circuit of tube grid, which means there is no field. Also, this hypothesis does not explain the audibility of power cables that emit nothing but 60 hertz harmonics. I believe, we may feel the electromagnetic field of the conductors in some situations, but there must be something else besides that. Otherwise, the puzzle doesn't add up. |
@oldhvymec No feedback, YES! Until you get a tube amp with no feedback, you just don't know what tube sound is. It was Hiroyasu Kondo who first noticed the degradation of sound when using feedback. A Japanese audiophile who was mocked for his "crazy" ideas for years until he became famous for sound of his silver cables and vintage triode amps. |
@perkri As far as I can get it, Ted_denney doesn't listen to the whole spool. He cuts a piece of wire from it, determines its direction, and then marks the entire spool. Then he can use the wire from the spool in his cables according to his idea of how the strands should be directed in cables. It is just more convenient way to work. As for the spool, the way a wire behaves when you turn it into a spiral is very complicated, it's not just a combination of LCR in different proportions. For example, it matters which way the spiral is twisted relative to the direction of the wire (clockwise or wise versa). There are lots of interesting things about audio inductors and transformers, but we're talking about wire here. |
@dletch2 All right, whatever you say, let's move on. What's an acoustic cable? Do you mean speaker cable? I don't think you understand fields. Applied voltage generates a field independent of current. That will be an electrostatic field. I apologize for the translation difficulties, of course this is a speaker cable, and the field is electromagnetic. but that doesn't change the point, if the grid emits audible radiation in some way, then the anode will emit tens of times stronger one. However, the wires on the grid (IC) and the anode (SC) make a proportionate contribution to the sound of the amplifier. Now let's try to figure out whether the fields can determine the audibility of power cables. Last time you replied something? strange about it: The level of the voltage changes at 60Hz. The frequency of the current may have a fundamental at 60Hz, but there will be harmonics up to many KHz and above. It is completely unclear how HF harmonics from a power cable get into the signal circuit and how 60 Hz buzzing can affect the music signal except to cause something like the same buzzing? |
@mahgister I am afraid, nothing except the BITS. Still have no time to reed them thoroughly. 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 haven't read about his string experiences yet, but I have my own personal experience on the subject. I was restoring an old broken violin ten years ago, doing this to get an idea of the direction of the parts of musical instruments. Here is the article, but unfortunately it is not translated. After the violin was restored, I experimented with various violin accessories, including different strings. 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. I had one Chinese string with a disgusting, rough sound, its screaming was very noticeable in both electric and acoustic variants, especially live right on the violin. Seems everything around us is connected in some cunning way. |
@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. |
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. The smallest step-change in amplitude, not power or average. Please read carefully. |
dletch281 posts Definitely, everything you said can be applied to your own message, especially "does not even recognize that he could be wrong". Essien refers to a lot of authoritative opinions, and you just reduce all their thoughts to zero without any doubt. Essien's main contribution is that he discovered the unsolvable problems in understanding of sound and explained what they are: "(In our perception) the instruments do not mix together and produce one instrument, and the singers are seen as separate individuals, different from the instruments. In like manner, when the singers sing accompanied by the instruments, the ear sees them as separate entities; they do not mix in the ear and produce one sound quality... At the acoustic level, however, all the vibrations issuing from the different instruments and human singers mix to form the chaotic acoustic jumble "a meaningless jumble (Hirsch & Watson)" and establish the well-known production/perception paradox—the most defiant challenge to hearing scientists to untangle the cobweb and explain hearing by psychoacoustic procedures." This is indeed an unsolvable problem, and within the framework of modern knowledge, sound can be described and investigated only partially, its part, related to the most subtle perception, remains behind the scenes. |
dletch2105 posts This is not actually true. The preferred direction can be determined in every circuit of an amplifier, see the article for details. |
nationalbar13 posts Never heard of such a thing, very interesting. Thanks! |
rodman999994,955 posts I wish I can express my thoughts as you do. Thank you for your comment. |
@dletch2 Your logical chain doesn't have a logical end. If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured even with the most accurate electrical measuring devices, see the article by Douglas Self. That 60Hz buzzing is not always just 60Hz. It is only something that happens 60 times a second. There can be rich harmonic content in that 60Hz buzz. Now that take 60Hz and harmonics and modulate a music signal with it. Now you have stuff all over the place. There's not much logic in this explanation either. Аny audible modulations and harmonics that power cable can cause will still be multiples of 60 Hz, which is a periodic interference. If such interference gets into the signal circuit, it is simply superimposed on the sound of music without changing the timbre, dynamics, or anything else that we can notice by ear when replacing the power cable. So we need some better explanation for power cables. I don't see a lot of justification for the cost or claims about most high end power cords. Most of these power cord / cable designers have little knowledge of electronics which is evident in their claims. It works because their customers do not either. Vicious circle. agree |
@dletch2 Let me remind you of the question that you moved out of: If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured in any serviceable amp. How can this be explained? |
@dletch2 I have to repeat: Essien refers to a lot of authoritative opinions, and you just reduce all their thoughts to zero without doubt. Whose words are silly then? |
@OP I would like to hear some confirmation of your point of view. Please explain what does "modulation of 60Hz and the audio signal" mean, and how this mysterious action differs from the usual addition of signals (mix), which usually occurs in the signal circuit. |
@OPLet me remind you of the question that you moved out of: If some objective interference enters the signal circuit and can be detected by ear, it should be easily measured. But we know that such interference cannot be measured in any serviceable amp. How can this be explained?@dletch2 @dletch2, You are engaged in demagoguery and do not help to understand the topic at all. Very sorry. But I’m still waiting for the answer to the question if you want to continue the discussion. |
@arthur1260 Traffic noise perception is a good analogy! The adaptation of hearing is used in subjective tests, when it is necessary to separate changes in the frequency response (FR) from more subtle moments. For example, when we evaluate the sound of two different speakers, we are faced with a difference in the FR and coloration at the same time, but by default we attribute everything to the FR. The adaptation of hearing helps to separate these two sensations - for some reason, a person clearly feels changes in FR only for a short period of time after their occurrence, and all this time the attention is involuntarily focused on the FR, and the rest of the moments remain in the background unnoticed. After some time (for everyone in different ways), the perception adjusts to the new conditions and you stop feeling the tonal imbalance at all, from this moment the consciousness begins to confidently fix all the other aspects of the music. It's like walking into a dark room from bright light and having to wait for the eye to adjust to the dark. The point here is that wires and other anomalies cannot be evaluated in quick tests. A quick test aims to detect small changes in the FR and distortion factor as accurately as possible, and this is where its advantages end. Long tests (a few minutes and more) evaluate everything else, revealing those little subjective things that turn sounds into music. |
djones513,807 posts Yes, аny audible interference in a signal can be measured because мeasuring devices are much more sensitive than hearing. At the same time when you reverse a cable and hear it, there is no interference in the signal that can be heard in some way, this was proved by Self and Co. Hence, in fact, the question of the topic "what do we hear when the wire is reversed?" |
@mahgister Mahgister, what do you think about Gestalt philosophy? "Gestalt theories of perception are based on human nature being inclined to understand objects as an entire structure rather than the sum of its parts." "This is in contrast to investigations developed at the beginning of the 20th century, based on traditional scientific methodology, which divided the object of study into a set of elements that could be analyzed separately with the objective of reducing the complexity of this object. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology In my opinion, it resonates with Essien and Ansermet and can explain the importance of long tests. |
djones513,820 posts You mean Self could just wrote what came to his mind? Honestly, i don't figure it out, what are your doubts. You weren't in such a hesitancy when you speak about wire direction. |
@joysjane The problem of anomalies arises only when some artificial equipment becomes an intermediary in the our perception of information about a living object or whatever it is that we consider the subject of art. NASA doesn't fit that description, so I agree with you. |
@mahgister It reminds me of the story of the origin of the musical temperament. For the sake of convenience, they sacrifice the purity of the tone and gradually accustom everyone to the fact that it sounds normal. "In musical tuning, a temperament is a tuning system that slightly compromises the pure intervals of just intonation to meet other requirements. Tempering is the process of altering the size of an interval by making it narrower or wider than pure". wiki |
djones513,824 posts This is very strange to me. Are you applying to be invited to a measurement session? Self is an authoritative audio engineer, he wrote a detailed description of the experiments conducted, gave data from psychoacoustics, there are links, if you want, you can check everything. Isn't all this enough to be shure? The question is rhetorical, you don't have to answer. I want to thank you and apologize for bothering you so much. Regards |
cmichaelo2 posts Self proved that there are no audible errors in the signal, even in more complex cases than just a single wire. It can be proofed by simple logic either. Let’s assume that the speaker wire has an error, but it is microscopic, on the verge of perception and measurement. Then, we will have to agree that the error is common to all the wires. And it turns out that, for example, in a RIAA corrector, the error of the wire going from the MC head to the transformer will be amplified almost 1000 times! And how many different wires are there in the system? Hundreds. And all these errors that occurred in the preliminary cascades will be amplified by hundreds or tens of times and superimposed on the useful signal. A microscopic error on the edge of perception multiplied by such a caos will become egregious. But we do not observe such errors. So there is no polarity, semi conductivity or any other ELECTRICAL assymetry in a wire. |
mapman's avatar We are talking about any short piece (say 5 inches) of single-core metal wire of medium thickness. All wires sound dissimilar when reversed, only to different degrees. To feel it clearly, you must have a special testing system. The simplest possible tube amp with no feedback which is paired with a single broadband speaker. The one I handmade for tests is: https://www.backtomusic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/schematics-testing-audio-equpment.gif. Using it, you can evaluate the coloration and right direction of almost any radio component (L,C,R) including wire. The test sample is connected to J1 and J2 connectors. |
mahgister, to be honest, I did not think that in this topic I can learn something new to me, but you have already brought a lot of interesting information that goes in parallel with my audio practice. I am going to post some of your posts on my site. Of course, if you don't mind. Regards |
dletch2194 posts dletch2, you haven't finished explaining your previous statement yet: "The interference of a power cable can get into the signal circuit and become audible not as periodic interference of 60Hz harmonics, but as non-periodic one so that initial frequency of 60 hz is perceived as something related to a musical signal (for example, frequency response), and not as interference or noise." After you make this one clear, I expect the next explanation from you: How the difference in frequency response can occur when a short piece of wire is reversed? And please, no more muddy theories. You are required to: 1 - numerical or relative estimation of the level of possible interference 2 - numerical or relative estimation of the level at which the interference penetrate the signal circuit 3 - In what exact place it penetrates there the signal circuit |
mapman I have an article in Russian https://www.backtomusic.ru/do/radio/testing, there is a description of a lot of subjective experiments made using the testing system, but what can they give you, other than to take the topic aside? I would believe whatever differences there are would show up most in cases where there is an impedance mismatch which is much more likely with zero feedback amps, but that should not really matter if one has addressed impedance matching between amps and speakers properly, which is the right way to do it for best results, so in that case impedance matching issues due to a zero feedback amp is a moot point. That's a shot in the air, sorry. Whatever the impedance mismatch is, it will remain the same for any changes in the area of J1 and J2. It will not prevent us from conducting the experiment, all other things being equal. |
Dletch2, no one is interested in rereading an infinite number of quotes and analyzing them. I've definitely covered up a question that you didn't answer directly by engaging in abstract demagoguery. I apologize that it looked like a direct quote. Dletch2In your direct quote, there is nothing like a logical analysis of the possible occurrence of audible distortions in the signal circuit when changing the power cable. I have to repeat, in order for your words to be at least somewhat similar to the evidence, you must provide: 1 - numerical or relative estimation of the level of possible interference 2 - numerical or relative estimation of the level at which the interference penetrate the signal circuit 3 - In what exact place it penetrates the signal circuit On the same points you have to explane your EXACT statement, that you made not long ago: Dletch2Does not work that way. If the error is simply frequency response, the relationship between the perfect and imperfect signal never changes... So, first of all you should explain, how the difference in frequency response can occur when a short piece of wire is reversed? Numerical or relative please. |
mahgister.., I apologize in advance, please do not answer if you think this is an immodest question. I've been going to ask you for a long time. You have a picture of the great Russian singer and poet Anatoly Vertinsky on your avatar, whose lyrics were of deep philosophy and whose performances were so extravagant that he stood completely apart from his more mundane colleagues. All this reminds me very much of you. I wonder is there any other connection between you and Anatoly Vertinsky? |
dletch2, your explanation on the power cable can only impress those who do not know at what level the changes in the signal circuit are possible when replacing one cable with another. But let’s leave it on your conscience. As I understand, you agree that the audibility of the power cable can not be caused by physical reasons, and this is actually all that we need for the moment. Meanwhile you put forward a second assumption that in a short piece of wire the frequency response can change when the wire is reversed. And It follows from the content that these changes in the frequency response go without the presence of signs of electrical asymmetry of the wire. According to Ohm’s Law, this cannot be. What formulas you are relying on to assert such things can be possible? |