...unless you lead in front (in thought) you have nuttin‘ but ***holes in front of you... Another fine example of directionality ...
oooops: how decidedly unscientific of me!
oooops: how decidedly unscientific of me!
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.
798 responses Add your response
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. |
Oh we have another SMART SNARK.. ok smart snark, here we go.. Your wrong... I know for a FACT the remote used on the crawler to move the shuttle and all the Saturn 5 rockets was in fact wired that way.. Off the spool, looked at and assembled, that is the way ALL critical runs of remote cable USED to be made at Holt.. BTW every cable I ever made for the last 35 year, I respected the fact that cables can be made BETTER.. AND for 35 year I made field repairs with DIRECTION in mind.... It’s tough enough to work on DC much less figure out how to make it work over LONG runs.. Oh yes, it’s a lot more that just resistance when it comes to working on cables.. A LOT MORE.. AC is king, but the reality of that is, DC will drive MOST AC or high current electricians wondering HOW to fix a circuit.. I’ve seen it countless times. Just wiring a boat trailer or something.. LOL Low voltage guys get it.. they really do... A trained electrician.. LOL My WHOLE family on both sides, electricians, mechanics, nurses and cops, there is the occasional lawyer and convict, but that’s the same thing .. Right... Lawyers and convicts, Cops and convicts.. Same thing to me.. One didn’t get caught one was stupid enough to get caught.. No difference.. Still family.. LOL Semi-Regards.. That's a 5 out of 10 on the regards scale.. So we're still ok.. For NOW... |
One possible physical reason for directionality of cables is due to the direction in which the wire is drawn and voids and irregularities that result from the drawing process. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. This is the closest explanation I’ve found that actually reflect what we hear.. The WAY the conductor is drawn through the die is EXACTY how a direction is placed on cable. If you look at the extrusion process the actual material lays like tiles, lapping over each other in a DIRECTION, much the way a roof is laid. Bottom to top. GUESS what that same analogy works for a conductive construct like WIRE. Try placing a roof BACKWARDS from the top to the bottom, NOT bottom to top... That lapping, how much O2, and the purity of the construct or an actual alloy for a conductor and the way it was FORDGED is WHY we have a crystal type formation. It crystal LIKE structure is conducive to direction, NOT ABSOLUTE.. It’s not or ever has been a question of HOW a conductor like OCC is made, NOW take advantage of the NOW KNOW increase in sonic difference BETWEEN one direction vs the other direction. There is a physical reason for wire and constructs to sound different one way and not the other.. No different than in a fuse, IF you look at the wire inside a typical busman fuse, under a microscope, you will see the same tool marks in the thermal wire... It looks like flakes laying over each other much the same way a ROOF tile is laid. Again this ain’t rocket science, but I’ll BET you good money that NASA used that technology when wiring up the shuttle, they looked at the cable and HOW the wire WORKED.. Nothing was assumed with 100 year old electrical tech.. It just didn’t happen.. Off the spool and under a microscope. James B of Ampzilla did it 50 years ago.. He KNEW cable and wire sounded different one way than the other... Why do you think he literally WELDED the power cable in place the RIGHT DIRECTION on his then and STILL famous NO feed back amps... My brother is a retired electrician and BA for his Union.. He had the funniest look on his face when we listened a few times.. He could hear but NEVER thought about cable sounding different.. Measure all day long exactly the same. but sound different.. Go figure.. Smart guy too, he's my big brother.. simple as that... |
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. There may be something to that. It seems to me it is all down to propagating a field. The field starts with sound pressure waves in air. These pressure waves are a manifestation of the repulsion of electrons in the outer shell of air molecules. So even sound turns out to be electric fields. In the same way, when we make a gramophone recording. Even though it is all mechanical springs and levers and horns still it all comes back to electron fields pushing each other around. Probably in most wire there is something asymmetrical going on that inhibits the coherent flow of this field. For sure it cannot take much. Searching through user reviews of parts like caps it is clear seemingly insignificant construction produces big changes in sound quality. These parts all measure exactly the same yet in many ways sound completely different. Seems to me this is all down to their ability to propagate this field in a coherent manner. This idea is reinforced by things we can do that are "outside" the signal path, at least in terms of what most today consider to be the signal path. The prevailing myth is current moves along a wire. Occasionally some will acknowledge the field around the wire. Hardly anyone seems to think the field itself is the signal. |
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.If you read what i say about the measuring process you will not neded to use "religion" wars against the alleged "subjectivist" opponent... I dont embark in stupidity like objectivist versus objectivist, with the subjectivist being the ignorant religious zealot... This is plain stupidity argument between two blind opponents.... I apologize sincerely to say that to you.... We cannot measure something without knowing what to measure.... Not only that we can measure something with the wrong measuring tool....We can also erase a phenomena trying to measure it in the wrong way... I read his post meaning only that: " it was about the necessity to know what parameters to measure and how they correlate to phenomena before and after the measuring process " This was my interpretation out of the subjectivist/objectivist dead end road... Do you want to stay in this dead end with your opponent? Not me.... Thanks.... « Measure process is more complex than meet the eyes»-Anonymus Smith |
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? |
However a bunch of anti-science people fought tooth and nail to prevent the acceptance of reality. geddit?His point was not about "subjectivist/objectivist" stupid audio thread wars, it was about the necessity to know what parameters to measure and how they correlate to phenomena before and after the measuring process; Eratosthene was in ptolemaic dynastical Egypt Alexandria library one of the rare people able to understand Archimedes.... Till the times of Galileo almost all people think flat earth... Geddit! |
The ancient Greeks believed the Earth was a sphere and measured it. https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm#:~:text=240%20B.C.%20Eratosthenes%20Meas.... |
I remember reading in 1976 in French ,the first edition, the" fractal objects" of Mandelbrot and all the book was about measuring in a way... The first chapter was: How to measure brittany coast... One of the most beautiful book i read... The book became legendary after that, a milestone in science.... |
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? |
Bias is large and it encompasses everything.You dont even understand the meaning and consequence of what you just write... Sorry..... In one word, biases are everywhere for sure but you cannot use them to debunk and protect each of your step or stop everybody barefoot on his road.... Your solution is like the fool who before the invention of the sandal wanted to cover the entire earth with some huge pieces of fabric to walk more easily.... Put fabric on your foot "if necessary" and called it a sandal ..... Do you understand what "if necessary" means in the context of our discussion ? I guess not.... End of dicussion for me...I will go barefoot for my journey....Buy a pair of sandal for you....And if someone want to use one pair it is ok, if he does not wanted to, dont ask for a "protected" earth for all of us.... My best to you..... Bias can explain and debunk everything you have ever changed in your system if blind testing wasn't used, it is necessary.Are you serious? 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😎 |
Because the 2 arms of the bias accusation are too large and encompass everything... Bias is large and it encompasses everything. No Biases can explain or debunk 2 years of incremental chganges in my system and no blind test is necessary.. Bias can explain and debunk everything you have ever changed in your system if blind testing wasn't used, it is necessary. |
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).I must thank you anton_stepichev very much for Essien article... I already read many articles from him in the last 2 days and i wait for his book coming in thursday... All his experiments and theory go in the same direction than my own research on language, phonetic/phonology....It also join to the deep thinking of Ernest Ansermet in musical meaning experience... It also complete the Pythagorean and Platonic direction of science by a Goethean phenomenology of the sound body... This book was the missing link for me ..... This book is a treasure for me really, then my deep thanks.... «Dying before reading some books is like living missing encounter with unknown friends»-Anonymus Smith |
Why is it too far fetched?Because the 2 arms of the bias accusation are too large and encompass everything... No Biases can explain or debunk 2 years of incremental changes in my system and no blind test is necessary... You dont need a policy guide to pilot you on a straight line road called listening experiments...Blind test is a scientific rigorous " statistical" tool or a marketing tool for companies and sunday scientist.... All those who use this rethoric against someone are most of the times consumers who never create their own system.... they believe only specs sheets redacted by others it seems... Spec sheets are not sound experience.....Only minimal assurance of some standard design quality.... |
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. |
@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. |
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) Why is it too far fetched? You make a claim saying there is only one conclusion, I give an alternate conclusion you say is to far fetched. I fail to see how humans have bias is more far fetched than unknown signals hidden in wire unknown to science?? Let's not assume bias is to far fetched since we know it's a common human condition. You make an extraordinary claim concerning hidden signals, do you have any extraordinary evidence? |
the map is not the territory. the book is not the exploration of unknowns. The textbook is very much NOT science. it is a book for engineers to follow directly as being 100% dogmatic. that’s why they used the words LAW in expressing theory, for engineering textbooks full of numbers, math and formulas. Good luck with your scientism religion boys. Engineering as a trade, as an academic endeavor channel in training people... was literally created to deal with the dogmatic mind and make it useful to building out the world. LITERALLY. That the creation of the area of endeavor called engineering was literally created by the renaissance men of the 16th century to make some positive use of the predominately dogmatic minds of men. They took the thing that worked in the area of religion, and then baked it into the creation of the formal expression called engineering. Seriously. I kid you not. Woe to the engineer who starts believing that junk and starts spouting it to extend comfort in/of life and control into others and subjects --which they don’t understand. (dogmatism comes alive in the ego haunted mind...) Importantly, engineering is specifically NOT science. Engineering is all about facts. Facts do not exist. Science understands that fact don’t exist and that all is theory, there are no laws in science. Laws are for punishing people who have not moved and acted according to the dogmatic mean of the group. To attack the social crime, the comfort of self and group aspects that underlie, color and wholly filter the unconscious expression of logic in mind. That you cannot have a thought without it being run through the unconscious and the reptilian hind of the mind. In or out of it. All filtered and colored by the underlying animal. Only when calm.. can reason emerge. when the reptile is almost..but not quite...asleep. That's the origins of the mentally predominant expression of dogmatism in humans. Some more than others. ~~~~~~~~~~ Coming back to the cables, this means that you have to deal with it as science, not engineering. So, we have a quandary. Where people say they hear things and the engineering based measurement systems that are the common currency... seem to find... nothing. Yet the observation persists. To the tune of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS who hear it. over a thirty year plus window. Persistent beyond belief. Where these people, they refuse to back down and write it off as some sort of misheard thing, that does not really exist, They have no reason whatsoever to doubt observation. Science is founded in observation and then investigation. Observation is king. It lies at the heart of discovery. This means a scientific exploration is in order. Science. so we have to take the observation for what it is, and then explore the why of it. Find the weak link in the ’measurements’. find a new measurement. look for something we don’t know. Look for what we are missing. THAT...is science. and importantly, I know the ins and outs of it in full. In the most minute details. but..this is business. this is my lore. This is how I make a living. So I owe the challengers NOTHING. I’ll do you the honor of sharing that the quandary exists... and that your ranting is off and totally outside of science. But that is as far as I will go and is also a lot further than I’m obligated to go. If that pisses you off, well suck it up. Deal with it. I owe you zero. Do some science, figure it out, grow the hell up. |
@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. |
And yet we can still land a vehicle on Mars, even fly something while there. More special pleading. So.....? What was the 1st thought that went through the mind of the Commander when that happened? You can lead a horse to water, But he may piss in it. Apparently, Its what proponents of Scientism do also |
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. |
@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 ================================================= |
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. Yet , some here, on an audiophile forum which is inextricably linked to music, which is one of the most subjective subjects on earth, are trying to apply Objective standards ONLY to what we can hear??? This is Scientism at work. You are not engaging in science. You are engaging in RELIGION. |
ted_denney nailed it:
The differences heard are the difference between a more solid and focused sound, and one that is phasy and incoherent. The first time using one of his Blue Fuses the sound was more dynamic with a blacker background, but also was not solid, focused and coherent. I have used lots of Synergistic over the years, it is always solid, focused and coherent. So within about a minute of listening I switched the fuse around. It was immediately apparent this is the correct direction. Now I am in the process of upgrading my crossovers. I know from experience there are huge gains to be made from using higher quality caps, inductors, and resistors. This is strange only in the sense that these are all specifically designed to measure the same. The whole point of manufacture is to have them all be electrically identical and interchangeable. Well they are in the sense that they work. They most definitely are NOT in the sense that they all sound the same. This is beyond debate. The differences are so obvious and easy to hear it can only be the people who argue this have never tried, or they have and simply refuse to believe their own experience. I do not however think this means there has to be some additional unaccounted for signal there waiting to be discovered. I find it much more likely we simply have vastly underestimated the human sensory potential. When we "sense" something with our senses it is nothing like what a meter does. The meter measures one tiny little aspect of one tiny little thing. Our senses are comparatively universal. Psychologists have a devil of a time designing experiments precisely because we have so many different ways of sensing things. It is extremely challenging to narrow them down. This is not even talking about mental aspects, the "bias" card so many scoundrels love to play. This is simply the way we work, and it is vastly different than any meter. None of our sensory systems fire off a signal that says to the brain, "Incoming! 92.7dB at 5kHz!" Not at all. What happens instead is millions of neurons become excited and send an electrical impulse down the axon to a synapse. Millions. Just because it is sound, do not for one minute think this means all the neurons are in the ear. Every sensory neuron is doing this! Simultaneously! Throughout your whole body! It is even kind of silly to focus so much on just what we "hear". I don't think we have even a very good idea what that means, "to hear". Case in point. I know Townshend Podiums work. I know how they work and that they do in fact work. Had a guy recently use them and he was disappointed. In talking to him it turns out one of the things he likes about his speakers is the way they send bass through the floor up into his legs and butt sitting on the chair. He misses that and his speakers don't have enough bass to make up for what he lost. Which, just to make sure everyone gets the point- is what his skin and bones are feeling not his ears! We hear with our whole bodies. Another example, my Aunt Bessie, deaf from birth, "heard" me playing music one time. Actually she felt the vibrations coming through in the next room. She came and stood right in front of the speaker, put her hands on it, face lit up with delight. Then there was the recent story of the deaf audiophile who "listens" by holding a balloon. He can differentiate between speaker cables! Thus this legally stone deaf audiophile can "hear" things other audiophiles- who supposedly are not deaf- cannot. This is all due to a cascade of millions of neurons firing more or less binary signals that somehow somewhere coalesce into an awareness of music. Or whatever. That's on our end. What about the "signal"? It is the same, as the French say, only different. On the signal end it is not millions but trillions, or quadrillions, of electrons. Not even electrons really, the electron is merely the particle we posit carries the field. Really it is the field we are talking about. Physical electrons really do not move from one place to another. No electron went from the recording studio to your listening room. It was the field did this. Not the particle. The wave. Science cannot even answer the question- is light a particle? Or a wave? Sounds impossible but it is not. Look into it. When we do an experiment to see if light is a particle, sure enough, we detect photons. When we do an experiment to see if light is a wave, what do you know? It is a wave. So what we seem to have is a situation where we sample a field of almost incomprehensible complexity (performed music) transform the sample into a field wave (signal in a wire) and transform it back again in our rooms where once again it is sampled only this time by a sensory apparatus (us) of almost incomprehensible complexity. I don't think there is anything extra. Pretty sure all we have to do now is figure out how to comprehend the incomprehensible. |
@turnbowm Here it is even more interesting, if of course you are really interested in understanding. |
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. |
@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? |
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. |
When building cables at the Synergistic Research factory, we listen to spools of individual conductor strands to determine their audible signal direction or, should the conductor run in the direction it’s pulled from the spool, or in the opposite direction when worked into a cable? The differences heard are the difference between a more solid and focused sound, and one that is phasy and incoherent. Other differences include, correctness in timbre for instruments, and the presents or a lack thereof of ringing in high frequencies. Ted Denney Lead Designer— Synergistic Research Inc. |
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 scienceThis statement is flawed there is another possible conclusion well known to science that doesn't require additional signals contained in the electrical signal. The other option? Bias, conduct a proper ABX test and see if people really confidently perceive this component of sound. |
