2. cables
  3. 166070-159469

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.
anton_stepichev

Showing 6 responses by pauly

pauly
1,012 posts
 
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?


The most obvious one; there are changes but we do not have the understanding or equipment to measure them. 
It never fails to surprise me how many “engineers” on forums are under the impression that their (lack of) understanding trumps observation. Little knowledge is dangerous.  
Disclaimer. While I have heard the sonic changes of new cables burning in many times, I have never been able to hear any sonic impacts from turning a cable around. I do believe it’s a real phenomenon, but I cannot attest to it. 
pauly
1,012 posts
 
@alexberger


Hi @dletch2 ,

What kind of knowledge do you have?
Are you psychoacoustics specialist?
Have you read any book about psychoacoustics?
Do you have any knowledge of electronics or acoustics or the human brain science?


Alex, I’ll have you know that dletch2 is the smartest employee at the Ace hardware. Engineering, neuroscience, psychology, music… you name it, he knows it all. The boss doesn’t allow him to lock up at night for nothing you know.
😂🤣

pauly
1,012 posts
 
It always amazes that people are so arrogant that they don’t even accept that they have biases, and that their sited observations are totally prone to bias and that this arrogance goes so far to extend to insulting others knowledge, even though their experience and knowledge comes down to guesses and reading a few internet forums

This from mr "if I don’t understand something it means it isn’t real." Hilarious.

I have no biases.  In this particular case I stated that I couldn’t observe a difference when the direction of the cables were changed. (Doh) I simply communicate that which I have observed. When I cannot explain something, I say so. Not being able to explain my observation does not make my observation invalid. 

You seem to be under the impression that unless you understand something, it isn’t true. How arrogant. Well, sorry to break it to you, you’re no einstein. You’re not an engineer and you most certainly do not have any experience with electronics. You don’t know how things work not because they’re not real, you don’t know how things work because you’re ignorant. Most of all, your ignorance doesn’t negate a single thing any one observes.

Get over yourself. The OP asked a legitimate question. If you cannot engage in a constructive manner, and clearly you cant, please do us all a favor and piss off.






pauly
1,012 posts
 

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...

Now that is funny. 

I actually have read (some of) his posts. That's why I chose to not read any more of his posts.

In one post, he actually made the a claim that to implement feedback in a tube amplifier, you need to add "more tubes". If you have knowledge with electronic circuits nothing more needs be said. 

If you don't have, I understand that sometimes folks without subject matter expertise can be swayed by BS. So no condemnation from me. If you consider mr bullwinkle here competent, that's your choice and none of my business.

But please refrain from sharing your belief in his competence with me. I have a real concern I may rupture my spleen from laughter. I'm sure there is a lot we can share w/o including our resident "engineer" no?












pauly
1,012 posts
 
If these new models don’t agree with your preconceptions and biases you’ll dismiss them as well.

Anytime scientific model conflicts with observation, the science/scientific model is wrong.

A 100 years ago we believed we fall towards earth because of gravity. Today, we know there is no such thing as gravity. What we thought was gravity, is the distortion of space-time caused by the mass of the earth.

The theory of gravity can explain why we fall off building, but cannot explain why we age slower if we are on the ground floor than if we’re up in the penthouse. (Yes, time moves slower the closer we are to mass.) The theory of space-time explains this phenomenon. Trying to use the theory of gravity to disprove that time moves slower as mass increases is anti science.

The models we have today explain some things we perceive, but clearly not everything. They cannot be used disprove observation that they can’t explain. Science cannot be applied to prove a negative.
pauly
1,012 posts
 
The problem here is many who speak of science are techno cultist...


I wouldn't go as far as calling them cultist. I see them as folks who's understanding of science isn't quite as advanced as what they believe it to be. 



More to discover