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?
You can state your opinion about an amplifier without any need to justify...
But an idea is not an object and you said without any REASON that this thread is bulshit.... You are not ALONE in this thread with someone, we are many and we wait for the reason why it is bulshit...
The OP is sincere in his quest and dont merit insults...
This is my point.....
And try to study what is recommended before spitting something...
Essien book is a doctorate about a fundamental fact.... Even if he is wrong the book is interesting...
Then in my list of thread useful counts , save my discussion with audio2design, which give me great idea, this OP give the other important one...
Then in the many years here these are the only 2 important posters i discuss with...
No but I am sure people will continue to tell us what we should be hearing. So much for trust your ears. Who came up with that ridiculous concept anyhow?
Not that this justified an answer but I’ve been studying these things for years. So I suspect my opinion is at least as educated as yours.
If you read my post i did not oppose your opinion and mine... Like spitting contest... i was speaking about articles and a book suggested by the OP in this thread.... I read many articles of this writer have you?
No but I am sure people will continue to tell us what we should be hearing. So much for trust your ears. Who came up with that ridiculous concept anyhow?
How can something needing experiment could be ridiculous?
A ridiculous fact or concept dont need any experiment...
How can you ridiculized someone who ask for experiments with a well articulated reasons for that?
I cannot , i dont know myself...
But the book recommended is very interesting this is my point... I have one point of interest then ... You dont have any save the spitting reflex...
You reverse the facts here...I was asking to you a simple question: have you read the article recommended by the OP... simple....
It is you who judged the thread without knowing the article recommendeded by the OP to read...
I was pointing only this fact...
I dont insult people reading a thread without explaining my arguments... This is my point....
By the way i dont have any enlightened opinion about the difference in sound by the direction in wires or cables.... It is simple fact tough that the OP deserve respect because of his own efforts to understand...
But in audio thread simple minds place always themselves in artificial warring sides like "objectivist" and "subjectivist" this is children play...
I prefer thinking....
The last times i was discussing here with someone of a different perspective or opinions , was with audio2design... We were opposite... But he had many arguments and i learned so much with the discussion i created my " mechanical equalizer" because i have discussed with him...
Then i like people even if we are not on the same boat, if they are able to discuss with arguments....
Not in the sense of what is the cause. But thanks to Ted Denney we have what it sounds like.
He is not the only one tough.... My Morrow cables are like that also...then thanks to Mr Morrow too....By the way advertising a product will polarize people... It is better to stay on the problem....
I think that the answer to the "why" will be a complex answer... The book suggested by the OP can be a piece of this puzzle... Anyway i ordered it...
The book is so original that it is a revolution or complete non sense, nothing between the 2....
Very interesting and way more important than cable direction by the way.....
It is the reason why i am so interested in this thread : this book and for sure the dedication of the OP to his search....
The question about which all the book revolve is what is sound? Nothing less than that... Is it not interesting?
The author oppose 2 thousand years of research.... Then it is complete non sense but perhaps not.... It takes all his life to write this and it was a part of his doctorate experiments... This matter to me because sound is not only acoustical physics and psychoacoustic but also linguistic....
The mystery of being human is linked to language not only music and anyway the 2 are related by the 2 polarities in language: prosaic and poetic working modes, like also the brain polarities hemispheres...
The ops word salad argument is a straw man. Plus the article referenced as described has nothing to do with wire direction. Just a setup to suggest that anything is possible.
A total waste of time. I’m sorry I even read it and bothered to post. That’s all.
The ops argument is a straw man. The article reference as described has nothing to do with wire direction. Just saying.
The main experiment of the writer is about mechanical constraint on string and the difference between pitch perception and frequency...
There is no direct link...
But you are quick to qualify someone of rethorical abuse without knowing all that matter here...
No direct link does not means no link....
Why did you like to oppose without any arguments save qualifying an interesting book not worth reading ...
The book being a complete redifinition of the sound hearing experience, how do you know that no link exist at all?
A total waste of time.
Why do you think always that your expressed opinion about a book you dont know and dont plan to read is not a waste of times for us?
Especially if the writer pretense is redefining the hearing problem...He is right or wrong nothing between the 2....
How it is easy to always think by binary modes... It is black and white... Subjectivist versus objectivist... Like condioned Pavlov dogs reacting....
You even LEND intentions to the OP which are not his own... The OP think and dont pretend to have answers....
i will LEND to you some intention that are probably more truthful than your own lending attibution to the OP: you like trolling....I prefer thinking....
@mahgister what have you read of Essien to this day? Which articles?
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.
"But thanks to Ted Denney we have what it sounds like."
Thank me, too. I know what it sounds like. I tried it. Never sold it so maybe a little less of a conflict of interest than people who make living from selling cables.
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.
The most surprising discovery then turned out to be that the metal string E has not only a conventionally "electric" directivity, like all other wires, but also a "mechanical" one! The violin sounds more precise and reach when the beginning of the string is on the side of the pegs. At the same time, the advantages and disadvantages of the sound of the string could be evaluated both by playing the violin and using the string as a wire.
Very interesting...
Then Essien experiments are pertinent to your subject matter indeed...It talk about this mechanical internal tension in the string... But the book is more about psychoacoustic fundamentals deriving from this than about wire...But there is a link for me... I will have the book in the next days...
One thing is certain the book is non sense or very very important...
I order it on the spot because i think it is an important book...
The whole thing is a mess. I am with Mapman, I am sorry I wasted any time reading it.
All your post is an opinion like mapman WITHOUT any reading or analysis of the book...
Then...
For mapman it was " innate knowledge ", i guess and i know that for you your opinion comes from "perfect" scientific formation coming with your education and works in audio...It is easy to spot reading your posts you are not like me an amateur...
Then i will respect your opinion....not the opinion of mapman....
But i will read the book.....
A very weak conclusion, not at all supported by evidence in the paper
By the way the book is 512 pages.... The author has obtained his doctorate at the Sorbonne in acoustic for a work and experiments that takes him decades because he was innovative so much in an Unorthodox direction to explain hearing process and sound and perhaps he is wrong but i will be surprized if he was a complete idiot....
Then refrain your judgement and wait for arguments...Or perhaps like mapman you enjoy innate knowledge and not only experience in the audio working field ?
That will be interesting book because it is in the center spot of acoustic experience...
By the way it is not USUAL to produce a doctorate at the Sorbonne or in any known institution contesting in an original way centuries of reasearch in acoustic, is it not?
Then for this study , no innate knowledge or experience in audio will replace reading it....
I am guessing they were desperate for papers for the 2nd International Conference on Acoustics in Nigeria. Beautiful country, nice people, not well known for academic regour (note author is listed as independent researcher and no indication of peer review, which, is not uncommon at these conferences.)
This is only prejudices and his doctorate is in acoustic from Sorbonne... even if it is not the center of the world of acoustic research they dont give a doctorate to a complete idiot....
I will pass your prejudices and read the book...
I am interested by the links between phonology/phonetics, music, and acoustic, the book adress all that...
M Yup. Have at it! I am fine with that. Aren’t you glad?
BTW I never attacked the OP personally, just what he/she wrote. Would reach the same conclusion if Mother Teresa actually wrote it. Whereas that makes me a bad person in your eye. Which is fine. It is what it is.
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.
Never figured out how you all can hear directionality in a wire for an AC signal. I have done enough testing in various systems over the years and I can not hear a difference in direction other then sometimes with poor wire shielding and grounding (usually via noise). To me its a load of BS saying an AC signal on a wire can have a direction as it would only be the "correct" direction for half the wave length at what ever frequency the signal is at. Personally I feel much of this is the human brain.
That said I've also tested cable runs on military vessels using a fluke cable tester ( a $40,000 unit not a multi-meter) it will show every connection on the run, every solder joint on the run, every cable tie holding the cables in the wire ways every place a EMF interference is on the cable, resistance/inductance/capacitance and where they fluctuate on the run, etc. It shows these in real time with locations on the cable run that these issues are located in meters from the test unit. so yes cables can be tested and can make a difference (to a point).
An AC signal on a wire is still going both directions so how/why do you hear a difference?
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 math is flawed so why would I belive anything else in the post?
A 1 volt change from a 10 volt average represents a change of 21% in power, not 10% as stated.
10V x 10V = 100V / 10 ohms = 10 watts
11v x 11v = 121V / 10 ohms = 12.1 watts
I will stick with my initial analysis. Poorly supported conclusion based on false summaries of other works, that I suspect he does not even have the academic background in many cases to understand let alone comment on.
You dont even know his basic affirmation...
You have not read it...
And you insult his intelligence without even knowing him...
I am flabbergasted by your prejudices....
But i will mute myself for now...
I have not study it enough either and i am not an audio specialist...
but you dont seems to have a clue about what this writer want to adress in psychoacoustic....
Why pitch perception, an objective phenomenon with human endowed with perfect pitch perception, cannot be completely reduced to physics concept of frequency or explained by it...The writer use mechanical experiments to point what is lacking to the frequencies approach of Helmholtz to explain pitch perception...He also touch phonology/phonetic deep problems in language and this part interest me very much also....
I am not competent to gives an authorized opinion for sure.... I am not sure you are either, his affirmation and experiments goes on a complete other direction than orthodox research in psychoacoustic...And even Lord Kelvin explained to all that physics in 1900 was touching the end...He cannot fathom the Planck revolution to come... Then i dont doubt the competence in physics of Kelvin no more than your own competence in audio....
Anyway i will stay silent for the moment....And this thread is not about Sound but about direction in wires.... then...
Never figured out how you all can hear directionality in a wire for an AC signal.
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.
@dletch2 If you can't prove it with a blind listening test, then it is not there.
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?
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.
Again: no one can possibly know whether ANY given changes will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves. 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. Since the dawn of humanity; we've seen, heard, felt and otherwise witnessed phenomena, that none of the best minds could explain, UNTIL they developed a science or measurement, that could explain it. The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!" = their credo). Theories have never proven or disproven anything. It’s testing and experimentation that proves or disproves theories. IF you’re interested in improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and the audacity to trust your own senses: TRY whatever piques your interest/curiosity, FOR YOURSELF. The faith-based, Naysayer Church HATES it when THAT happens!
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?
None of this arguing about science helps anyone in any practical way. YEs its all gaslighting....and even that is done very poorly from even just a mere logic perspective.
I think someone needs to go out and write more papers and get it all reviewed and accepted by an authoritative body on the subject. Not that even that will help the poor shlubs here who just want their hifis to sound good.
If someone wants to nod their head and finds it enlightening somehow in some way, well good for them. Count me among the unenlightened. This place has become a garbage dump for people who can't find an audience elsewhere for their brilliance. Too bad!
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.
... no one can possibly know whether ANY given changes will make a difference, in their system and room, with their media and to their ears, without trying them for themselves ... The Naysayer Church wants you to trust their antiquated science (1800’s electrical theory) and faith-based, religious doctrine, BLINDLY ("Trust ME!" = their credo) ... IF you’re interested in improving your system’s presentation, have a shred of confidence in your capacity for perceiving reality and the audacity to trust your own senses: TRY whatever piques your interest/curiosity, FOR YOURSELF. The faith-based, Naysayer Church HATES it when THAT happens!
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. This assures them of endless opportunities to argue and pretend they are saving us from ourselves, or from each other, or from some mythical "snake oil" evil-doer. That's the problem here.
In science, you can have any theory you want. THen you collect data that you analyze statistically to determine if the data supports the theory or not. It either does or does not to various degrees. Nothing is ever "proven" 100% categorically.
So whenever you read that someone says X is true for reason Y and especially then they just talk a lot, take it with a grain of salt. It's merely an opinion at best and everybody has one. Certainly resist the initial urge to open your wallet.
Or not. It’s a free country. One is free to believe whatever they choose and the gaslighters and con artists know that.
A simple test, done under controlled conditions with witnesses and published for all to read in a reputable journal would help. Person A has cables for which he/she believes she/he can hear directionality in his/her system. Person B comes to where this system is, with witnesses. Person A selects the music and listens to everything blindfolded or otherwise screened from seeing which direction the cabling is hooked up and when/whether the cabling direction is switched. Round 1: Person B attaches the cabling and follows Person A’s direction on what to play through what device(s). When Person A is satisfied with this round, Round 2 begins. Person B switches the cabling direction (or not) and follows Person A’s directions again on what to play through what device(s) until Person A has heard enough. Person B then switches the cabling direction (or not). Round 3 begins...and so on. Enough rounds are conducted to give the desired confidence level per the “Student’s t Test” for rejecting hypotheses, and to satisfy Person A (perhaps). Person A keeps notes and at the end has to state for each round transition, whether the direction of cabling was changed or not.
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.
So you're saying neurons do say, "Incoming! 92.7dB at 5kHz!" You seriously believe that? Really??!
Controlled tests are fine but there is nothing still that says cable y will behave the same as cable X you just tested. Even if its the same maker and model. The devil is always in the details and blanket statements are a slippery slope especially when big bucks are involved.
At least most low voltage wires can’t cause physical harm or injury on their own but that just means there are no legal bounds practically that a wiremaker and his claims can clearly cross and be held financially liable. IT’s just a hobby after all.
A Theory is never proved but they can be disproved.
That is completely mistaken. Every theorem began as a theory and existed as a theory until the proof was developed.
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.
A
simple test, done under controlled conditions with witnesses and
published for all to read in a reputable journal would help.
I'm not sure who it would really help. It wouldn't help those who are uninterested in such tests and have already made their choices about what to buy. Neither would be of much help to those interested in such tests but still undecided. For that listener, the only test that matters - whether blind or otherwise - is one in which he's the subject.
Person A
has cables for which he/she believes she/he can hear directionality in
his/her system. Person B comes to where this system is, with witnesses.
Person A selects the music and listens to everything blindfolded or
otherwise ...
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. A poorly designed or conducted blind test has no advantage over any other kind of listening test - yet it will still suffer the disadvantages and risks associated with blind testing.
When certain audiophiles say "trust your ears", they really don’t mean that. They say it. They probably say it 10-20 times a day on these forums. But they prove over and over they don’t mean it. If they really meant it, then they would not take every single opportunity they can to discourage blind testing. You can’t honestly mean "trust you ears" while you discourage blind testing. You are being dishonest with yourself and other audiophiles.
I dont discourage blindtesting in SPECIAL occasion like some marketing affirmation about cables...
But attacking people who spoke of their experience ALWAYS with mistrust because there is no blindtesting behind is not science it is ridiculous...It is more easy and practical to replicate their experience to verify than organize a rigorous and useless blindtest session...I replicate many "tweaks" without blindtest at no cost by the way....
I created my own "mechanical equalizer" with my ears, 32 tubes and pipes with orientable and adjustable necks, i fine tuned them like someone finetuned a piano...Do a piano tuner need to be blindtested?
Results: the voices of singers comes from my back when the orchestra play behind the speakers in front of me in some recordings... The wood sound in the middle of my room and and the strings behind my speakers in my version of Bach orchestral suite...
Who said 3-d sound OUT of the speakers is impossible filling ALL the room ? He is wrong... It is called psychoacoustic....It is also a science...
Did i need blindtesting all my steps in the few weeks needed to fine tune them? Or for each embeddings controls i used in the last 2 years? No.... Save when occured some small audible change borderline case in some occasions thats all....My biases are there but an hallucination dissipate when you act on it, like a city mirage vanish itself when walking toward it... Simple... Biases are not only something to erase anyway, it is also in the case of learned musicians somthing to cultivate by the way....All biases are not equal...
Advocating blindtest is interesting to assess statistical facts in the industry like pharmacology and erasing human biases or debunking or making publicity for a product.... Using it to debunk systematically ALL audiophiles claims and calling that science is sunday club scientism.....Thanks.... And anyway a rigorous protocol is usable ONLY in exceptional circonstance... Then using that for argument is childish saturday scout science...
I will wait for an official blindtest for some cables with interest but dont call that science....Or call James Randi nobel prize in physics... Many products dont need blindtest to reveal their effect without doubts anyway...only a listening session...
Dividing people between subjectivist and objectivist is pure stupidity... Not science.... It is astounding that people buy these useless distinction and argue about that....
Correlating measures with human perception in audio is a science called psychoacoustic..... Negating measures value is stupid.... More stupid perhaps reducing All there is to some measured known chosen parameters.... In the 2 case science is lost...Only technology need static facts, science need plastic brain....
Jonathan Swift already wrote about that centuries ago... He called that the big egg end party against the little egg end party....
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).
This has nothing to do with science, but more to do with faith.
Agreed!
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.
True, to a point. The Naysayer Doctrine (the measurementalist approach) does very much acknowledge that we humans are fallible and our senses prone to deception. Good for you! But then the measurementalists insist the doctrine is perfect and infallible; hence, those in conflict with the doctrine are labeled as deluded, insane, confused, stupid, and the like.
You can special plead science that does not exist, or not. It really does not matter.
Call it what you like, but it does clearly matter very, very much to you. That’s consistent with your evangelism and why you’ve made more than 80 posts here since joining just a week ago. And it’s why you’ve been banned from the group multiple times under your previous user names. Your proselytizing insults really get old.
You can’t honestly mean "trust you ears" while you discourage blind testing. You are being dishonest with yourself and other audiophiles.
There’s another example of how those who claim science and reason as being on their side commit some of the most confounding acts of ill logic along the way.
I don’t discourage blind testing, by the way. But neither have I adopted it as a religion or accepted it as my personal savior.
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.
One day you will research how we determine how we determine the location of sound, front to back, and realize that what you describe, is at best illusory, heavily influenced by preconception, and if true, would cause all vocals to do this, whether that is in the original recording or not, and probably causes a lot of the instrument sounds to have a false location.
Human perception is not illusory in the absolute sense...
And for sure this files comes from an excellent studio recording where the singers walked and turn their head singing.... what i listen to was an acoustical recreation of what was the intention of the recording engineer....It is a theater play not static singing...
For sure in many recording the instrument dont have a true location....
But my sound effect is not 2-d and lifeless....
That is the point...
You can create all kinds of illusions for a given set of speakers, in a given room, with a given set of reflectors, diffusers, absorbers, that will work for one effect, on one recording and create chaos with anything else. This is not news, but can be fun.
Sorry here your affirmation is not my expoerience ...
All my recordings files are not in chaos they are more livelier 3-D and filled the room...
This result by the way is not obtained by MAINLY and ONLY a balance between diffusive, reflecting, and absorbing surfaces BUT by my use with my "mechanical equalizer" and the locations very precise of the 32 tubes and pipes inhabiting my room and transforming completely the zones pressure distribution...
I had the idea discussing with you in a disagrement that was a great luck for me when we argue about imaging concept.... You forgot? Anyway i cannot thank you enough for the discussion...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
