I've got 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, special pleadings working over time.
I think you mean infamous.
eminent cable manufacturerers
I think you mean infamous.
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 dletch2
Other differences include, correctness in timbre for instruments, and the presents or a lack thereof of ringing in high frequencies. I understand the difference in cable direction is very much like the effect of sniffing glue. Or was that if you sniffed glue, you would claim a difference? Can’t remember. "Ringing of high frequencies" ... of a bare conductor. Okay. I won’t comment. I don’t see a point. Extra marks for creativity. |
96% of the Universe is MISSING! It is dark matter & Dark energy of which we literally know nothing. Higgs Boson seems to hold everything together, yet is totally elusive. It is the "God Particle" yet some scientists call it the Godda** Particle instead because they cannot get a grip on it. And yet we can still land a vehicle on Mars, even fly something while there. More special pleading. |
If wire is directional, which in the sphere of audio is, in my kindest words, questionable, then it could only be directional for AC. DC cannot be directional. |
There is a difference between low tech, and the level of test, retest, verification, etc. that goes into anything going into space. The crawler is critical to success, but not at the same level as something that literally cannot be fixed if it breaks. We don't send people the moon because the cost is high, and there is little value at this point to doing it. We can send a rover that can last weeks, months, years. To put a human there that long is stupid expensive. Not sure what the rest of your ramble is about. Some of us actually have worked on stuff that went into space. We know the hoops. Wire direction was not one of them. |
His point was false. He was trying to say we were weren't or couldn't measure the right thing, hence believed the Earth was flat. That is flat out wrong, pun intended. We absolutely had the ability to measure and prove the earth was not flat. It was almost exclusively the force of religion that attempted to prevent science from communicating the truth so that their preferred lie could remain true. Geddit? |
If we revert back to the knowledge level of the time of Galileo I will be sure to let you know. However, we knew the earth was not flat since about 2,000 BC. The Greeks had discovered it back then. However a bunch of anti-science people fought tooth and nail to prevent the acceptance of reality. geddit? |
@millercarbon - Capacitors have electromechanical effects that show up as very real and very significant electrical changes at audio frequencies. That is not even getting into ESR, etc. all substantial at audio frequencies. - Inductors can have high DC resistance or low DC resistance and parasitic capacitance, all again which lead to significant electrical changes - Resistors can have inductance, thermal noise, and thermal modulation. All lead to significant electrical changes. Now do wire direction, at audio frequencies, with an effect large enough to be audible, without making anything up. |
teo_audio, Now find me a scientist who uses argumentum ad populum as a justification for their arguments in their doctoral thesis. There went 4-8 years down the tube. You appear to have a lot to learn about science, and engineering and what actually happens in those disciplines but in either one, they have very strict rules for what they consider evidence. |
The crawler does not need high reliability, and I have actually been involved in the development of products that went into space, and not once did anyone ever mention the direction of wire. Like never, not in many many meetings. Never in military either. Everything on the crawler would be very low speed by the way and not too high of precision. If there were concerns, it would be mechanical stress and they likely were not pulling off bare wire, but jacketed wire. Most electricians have a fairly poor understanding of electricity and certainly cables in a technical sense. I hope that was not a plead to authority. |
That is because they are listening to the wire and not to Pink Floyd and equate turning a screw to assemble an actuator to going through a full space qual design and implementation and having something up in space .... and no one ever mentioned cable direction. But that is nothing. I just read someone claimed the location of an instrument shifted 1/3 of the soundstage due to, wait for it .... wait for it .... copper wire. We have entered the twilight zone. |
anton_stepichev OP42 posts04-20-2021 3:44am@djones You mean like a blind listening test? If you can't prove it with a blind listening test, then it is not there. 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. 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. Also, this hypothesis does not explain the audibility of power cables that emit nothing but 60 hertz harmonics. 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. |
If you have the same wire on both sides, there is no need for balance control, assuming the wires are manufactured with any sort of consistency. I was mistaken though, they blamed it on the wire being stranded. Obviously it is not a stranded wire issue, but something simple that was missed. Back to the twilight zone. |
To understand speech and music and the principle of the auditory system, we must return to those primitive aspects of music and speech production in nature to determine and isolate mechanical features that underlie each auditory sensation. Any other procedure, by the terms of the body-image theory of sound, is an illusion. They have not worked, they do not work, and will never work. A very weak conclusion, not at all supported by evidence in the paper which is mainly just a bunch of ramblings to support statements/conclusions attributed in general and specifically that are not even factual. 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.) I must admire his conclusion which does not even recognize that he could be wrong, which, without establishing any evolutionary influence for music negates his conclusion. Frankly, the whole work basically implies that everyone has a super simplistic view when pretty obviously we understand there are complex mechanisms right from physical detection up to interpretation. The whole thing is a mess. I am with Mapman, I am sorry I wasted any time reading it. |
I don't read far enough to respect or not. The lack of critical thought is shrouded in too many words turns me off. The author got his PhD from the Institute of Phonetics and Applied Linguistics, Sorbonne University, and his PhD was only recognized as a hypothesis, not a theory, though later he calls it that, which would be frowned upon academically. Sorbonne is obviously world renowned, but not in psychoacoustics which this author basically dismisses. 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. I did get a kick out of this: https://ear.ac/about-ear/ |
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? This is not an advocacy for expensive power cables, but there are many ways the harmonics in the AC to get into the signal. Whether they do or not is a different question. The most obvious one is via the power supply, especially in a low feedback amplifier. Primary power supply harmonic is 120Hz, but with all the linear supplies, there are harmonics at many multiples of that frequency, certainly up to several KHz. Those big transformers audiophiles love get rid much of the really high frequencies. Those high current peaks from the power amplifiers generate harmonic noise on the AC line that can get into other power supplies. Those high current peaks can generate higher frequency EMI that can get into signal lines (at least a justification for shielding). 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. 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. |
Audio, tea, infused alcohols, and the perfect roasted marsh-mellow. 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&... 190F, 90C to brew. I would recommend no sugar. If you are in the US, this one is good: https://www.amazon.com/Yunnan-Longrun-Pu-erh-Tea-Fermented/dp/B0063XG7JQ/ref=sr_1_37?dchild=1&ke... |
Couldn’t understand why my Oolong tea at home never tasted as good as the restaurant. Then I discovered it was all about water temperature. Green, white and Oolong teas if they are brewed too hot taste bitter. At the right temperature, they lose the bitterness and you can brew several pots from the same tea leaves, with a slightly different taste for each pot. I used to backpack when I was younger. Now I just find that is work. A UVC water bottle would have been welcome back then. I would use filters and iodine. Not the tastiest stuff. |
None of our sensory systems fire off a signal that says to the brain, "Incoming! 92.7dB at 5kHz!" Not at all. You may want to learn more about our auditory system before you make posts about how it works because our auditory system does respond to specific frequency stimuli, and the response level is related to the volume, just as you claim it does not. There are more complex processes after that, not fully understood, but at a base level, what you wrote is wrong. |
Your "simple test" is too simple and what you describe are not controlled conditions. For example, your test isn't double-blind and doesn't allow for quick switching, requirements that experts in the field (Johnson, Toole) insist are necessary. The experts do not require quick switching. There is no requirement for quick switching in testing. Quick switching is used because in every case, it has been more reliable in detecting small differences. The longer the switching time, the harder it is to detect changes. Double blind is preferred, but as someone has pointed out repeatedly, this is a hobby site, not a scientific journal. If a manufacturer makes a claim, I would expect double blind as that is a commercial claim. I would hope that my fellow audiophiles can be honest enough with themselves and us that single blind is sufficient. You quickly get to know who tells tall tales and who does not. |
Theorems are mathematical, theories are more generic, but who is counting anyway. It’s true that the Naysayer Church is based on faith-based religious doctrine, and that would be fine by itself. However, the church’s fundamentalist evangelists preach their brand of faith by trying to cloak it with the respectability of real science, and then attempt to minister in a forum intended for hobbyists, not scientists. You were saying? This has nothing to do with science, but more to do with faith. One group is honest with itself and does not rely on the "faith" that they are infallible, while the other group does. No more, no less. You can special plead science that does not exist, or not. It really does not matter. The issue is the special pleading of lack of bias. That does not cut it. Learn to be honest with yourself, and you will progress much faster towards your audiophile goals. 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. |
Anyone that knows anything about the sciences (Physics, in particular), realizes that something like 96% of what makes up/controls this universe, remains a mystery. Anyone that knows anything about science knows that you could never assign a number like 96% to what remains a mystery as that would imply knowing exactly what we don't know. People not very good at science are pretty terrible at anti science rants disguised as pro science rants. It was good theater though. I hope you didn't simply cut and paste that? |
I also don't understand why these folks think that the biases they suffer are endemic to the human race Because they are. You may not understand this, but that does not make it any less true. Application specific knowledge reduces bias. The people who get the most abuse on these forums are those most immune to bias. This is not conjecture, but has been shown repeatedly in subjective testing fields. I have never avoiding blind testing, and because of that, I know, for fact, that audiophiles, just like everyone else are susceptible to bias, and expensive systems and listening experience appears do not inoculate a person from bias, no more than a sugar solution inoculates against a virus. Lifelong audiophiles with expensive systems are just as susceptible as anyone, and if they have convinced themselves of their infallibility, then they are even worse. I believe @Mijosytn in another thread pointed out that there is the ability, if desired, to train yourself to be better to pick up changes, but this is beyond the capabilities of most audiophiles as they cannot generate the controlled changes necessary, and as obvious in this thread, are unwilling to remove their eyes from the equation. |
Results: the voices of singers comes from my back when the orcjhestra play behind the speakers in front of me... 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. That is not what I would consider a positive result. 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. Advocating blindtest is interesting to assess statistical facts or debunking or making publicity for a product.... Callint that science is sunday club scientism..... 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, a topic that screams exactly for blind testing, whether the claim is made by a manufacturer (it has been in this thread) or by someone who could be misleading others (or not). |
cleeds, Your post is insulting, dogmatic, and adds nothing to the discussion. It is nothing but a rant. Your constant insults to me and others with attempted insults like "measurementalist", "naysayer doctrine", etc. is tired, old, and useless. Your deflection to bring up measurements in attempted refutation of something that did not mention measurements is an exercise in personal futility. Do you have anything at all of value to add to this conversation? It is about wire direction. If it exists as an audible effect, the effect will be small. If you claim you can reliably pick out very small differences without bias, then you are not being honest with yourself or your fellow audiophiles. Is that fair? A simple question. Why do you feel the need to oppose blind testing. Blind testing can do nothing, absolutely nothing but improve the quality of SUBJECTIVE testing. It has absolutely nothing to do with measurements. Not even a little. It is exclusively the domain of subjective impression. |
I have a fairly inexpensive but sturdy Hamilton Beach that I have had for several years. I checked the temperature with my candy thermometer and it is accurate. It had one feature that was important to me. When you set it to a temperature other than boiling, it will hold the temperature for 30 minutes. I have a habit of turning on the kettle then forgetting. This gives me 30 minutes to remember. I would just pick whatever has the best ratings at Amazon and go with that. This one only has 6 settings which is probably enough, but it has good ratings. Some of them I noticed are prone to leaking. When I buy off Amazon, I sum up the 1, 2 and 3 star percentages and look for low numbers. I find this more important than the average. It avoids duds. https://www.amazon.com/Temperature-Brightown-Programmable-Automatic-Protection/dp/B07X5J7NRM/ref=sxi... https://www.amazon.com/HadinEEon-Variable-Temperature-Electric-Protection/dp/B07HT3FXCY/ref=sxin_11_... |
I would say Riedel established themselves mainly through effective marketing and business penetration strategy. They have not created anything that did not exist before. Even the stemless glass was common in Portuguese wine drinking, though traditionally clay, which many believe enhances the bouquet, which honestly don't know if it is true or not. I have been told it does, so now I am susceptible to bias. I just like the feel in my hand. Harney and Sons is my other go to for decaf. I think I may prefer Barry's. Like music, the preference changes. |
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? You keep insisting there is a demonstrably audible difference that cannot be detected by instruments. This simply is not true. Neither that the differences have been demonstrated in anything other than ad-hoc fashion (i.e. at least blind), nor that in that same situation no one could measure a difference. |
I will simply point out that YOU said, it, not me. I don’t insist on blind testing because I like typing. I insist on it because humans are biased and no, their anecdotal evidence cannot be trusted and in this case should not be trusted as it is so easy to make the evidence far more reliable. However, I will also point to my other point about cable designers almost as a rule having no clue how electronics works, and even many "good" designers of electronics lack EMI experience. Hence they may not know the conditions required to generate measurable differences (if possible). 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. Your statement and conclusions are wrong. They will not only be harmonics of 60Hz, but also harmonics of the modulation of 60Hz and the audio signal (if they exist, and really more 120Hz). However, any comments about "dynamics" are questionable and likely not backed up factually, again to this blind testing thing. A wire can only be directional for AC signals. It cannot be directional for DC. You have it backwards. I am not saying there will be anything audible, only that you must have AC for it to be directional. This is absolutely true. A wire can only be directional for AC signals. It cannot be directional for pure DC. Giving me links to people with a poor fundamental understanding of the science does not change that answer. |
Essien's main contribution is that he discovered the unsolvable problems in understanding of sound and explained what they are: No, some guy (Essien) who is not an expert on psychoacoustics, neural acoustics, neural processing, etc. stated that he discovered the unsolvable problem, that no one else thought of as unsolvable, and assigned himself as the expert (without peer review). When I read the things he writes, like that paragraph above, it just sounds really silly to me. There are other words that come to mind, and none of them are remotely kind because, what he wrote is silly. Let me giving you two really simple, common, every day examples to show how silly what he wrote is: "OKAY GOOGLE" "ALEXA" I can have my Echo playing music rather loudly, yet the Echo can still pick out ALEXA out of that chaotic acoustic jumble. Similarly, I can have my music rather loud, and my Google Home picks out "OKAY GOOGLE" from that chaotic acoustic jumble. Essien writes about sound like the brain does not even exist. How am I supposed to take that seriously. Good thing Amazon and Google figured out the production/perception paradox. |
Riedel was the groundbreaker in wine glass design. Don’t get me wrong, there is a time and place for lo-fi wineglasses, as are commonly used everywhere. Table wines... But, if a special vintage is to be enjoyed to its fullest, the appropriate glass enhances the experience especially when paired with the "right" meal. I was not questioning whether a wine glass can modify our taste perception (it modifies the bouquet which modifies the taste), but whether Riedel is truly the one that started this [evidence of happening earlier] or even that what Riedel designates as the correct varietal glass, really are the correct ones for that variety. Pedantic? Perhaps, but I don't equate wine stemware to low-fi or hi-fi. I would equate it more to the acoustics of the room. We got a set of Zalto glasses as a gift. I understand these are near the penultimate for varietal stemware. I do really like them, but I think we are now at the level of boutique cables. People claim they are better because they are told they are, just like my cheap clay cups. |
The brain is not a computer at all and one of the greatest scientist think so with many others.. ( Penrose/Hameroff) and there is others... Forgetting for a minute that Penrose has limited to zil knowledge of modern theoretical neuroscience, this is not at all what he claimed. What he claimed, paraphrasing and summarizing, is that the brain can tap into quantum computing. That is still computing. He is misquoted or selectively quoted as saying "not computational", but in full context, more accurately it would be not algorithmic, though many brain and thought processes absolutely are. Of course, this is just a mental exercise, outside his area of expertise, and for all the brilliance, many brilliant people make leaps outside and inside their expertise that turn out to be colossally wrong. We shall see, but at the base, he did not say "not a computer", in fact he specifically references quantum computing. This is a topic for another thread, and really quite meaningless within the scope of the topic, and pure diversion, as it matters not how the brain works, it only matters the outcome, that outcome being whether you can audibly discern the direction of wire. |
I would not waste your time on Essien. He comes across a bit of a fraud. I don't think we can use classical definitions for computer or computing any more. We haven't been doing that since the days of genetic algorithms and certainly not with quantum computing and even an analog computer would be hard to consider purely algorithmic, with the answer dependent on the error band, and those predate digital. |
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? I reduce Essien, who again is not an expert on psycoacoustics, neural acoustics, neural processing, or really from what I can tell any relevant field that would make his, what is effectively an opinion, matter. I gave you my example, "OK GOOGLE", and "ALEXA", that shows that even a relatively simple processor can pull voice, out of a cocophony of sounds. The authoritative opinions you refer to, really are not. They are fringe, and/or quite old. |
false assumptions that the brain is a computer and that pitch is in some way reducible to frequency.... The brain is effectively a computer, I don't think that is disputable and pitch, by definition at least is, quite literally, frequency. You can dispute how the brain computes, but still a computer. And that could be the point where traditional science fails to answer, especially if it starts with the well-known and accepted theorem that humans' audible spectrum is 20hz to 20khz. There have been many many tests w.r.t. the range of hearing. There had been some evidence of "perception" w.r.t. higher frequencies. I think that was pretty much debunked, or at least was not easily repeated. It really does not matter either way to this argument. W.r.t. blind testing, no one is testing "taste". They are testing ability to identify a difference. Any difference. In fact, if you have a particular taste you are fond of, then that should provide even stronger ability to detect in a blind test. @dletch2 Then you are engaging in false witness as there is nothing in my post that is not a simple statement of fact. If you can't demonstrate the ability to detect a power cable change, or anything for that matter, in a blind listening condition, i.e. one where you don't know the nature of the change, then the reporting of being able to detect it is effectively void. There is no reason for anyone to take your word for it that you heard a difference. To the second part of my statement, I challenge you to present a valid observation (i.e. a blind test) where both there was a statistically valid ability to detect the change, and where a qualified person (i.e. someone with some solid engineering background) was unable to measure any differences. |
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. Listen as long as you want. It make no difference. Except the longer you listen, the harder it will be to identify a difference. If you wish to hamper yourself that way, that is your choice. I would suggest doing both. A quick test aims to detect small changes in the FR and distortion factor as accurately as possible No, this is not correct. Switching times are typically short because our echoic memory is very short (<5 seconds), and our working memory is also very short, i.e. <30 seconds, and comparisons using these memories are far higher resolution than any other memory imprint. Once you go much beyond 30 seconds, effectively you are not really comparing two sound anymore, but are comparing factors you have identified (or not) in those sounds, hence why the reliability of detection of changes drops. |
If there is a shift, a skewing, imbalance tonally, dynamically, etc. then further exploration/discussion is necessary. Yes, you either have some contacts you need to clean, you plugged the directionally shielded interconnect in wrong (unlikely), you need to get rid of those silly cables with the overpriced RC tone control built in, return those Tellurium speaker cables, because who thought a cable whose parameters shift big just by moving them was a good idea, or have someone make the change for you, because odds are you are imagining it. Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is the most likely. |