@millercarbonFascinating. So we got a guy saying the audible differences can only be caused by metaphysical reasons. While at the same time insisting everything be proved with numbers. This is Spock-level raised eyebrow fascinating.
No, he does not feel the changes and believes that the bias is to blame for everything. And he is not a person to admit his possible mistakes, now he will write a novel on the subject i'm sure. On a more pleasant note, I believe we are all Russian. This is after all why we call it Mother Russia, is it not? I am puzzled, really. I would never have thought that I would read this on an American forum from local people... Live and learn! Thank you! |
But Anna has something very rarely heard in his voice colored timbre
articulation singing , only the most beautiful voices own that angelic
inflexion...
Yes!! |
I humbly suggest that the skeptic clan should reverse the cables between their pre and power amps and enjoy them that way for a few hours, if you can take it.
Who's going to provide the data proving there is no difference?
|
As I understand, you agree that the audibility of the power cable can not be caused by physical reasons, and this is actually all that we need for the moment. Fascinating. So we got a guy saying the audible differences can only be caused by metaphysical reasons. While at the same time insisting everything be proved with numbers. This is Spock-level raised eyebrow fascinating. On a more pleasant note, I believe we are all Russian. This is after all why we call it Mother Russia, is it not? |
Here is my proposition to anyone including manufacturers. We get a room with good acoustic properties. Or we can go to your house with your reference system and music. We use your interconnect as the reference standard. I will bring in my test interconnect that is low cost say under $100. The only other thing I will bring is a special audio rack frame covered in black cloth like they use for speaker grills. You take as long as you want no pressure but you have to guess your interconnect at least 8 out of 10 trials while not being able to see what interconnect is connected at the time. No quick switching if you want you can spend hrs if you want. If you guys agree I will start a Gofundme page to pay for all the expenses.😃 |
then I think you’ll like Anna Herman Ahhhhh ! What a voice....I am already in love....Elena is very expressive so much i understand Russian listening her... But Anna has something very rarely heard in his voice colored timbre articulation singing , only the most beautiful voices own that angelic inflexion... By the way i read slowly your site "Contour System"... Very interesting.... |
methinks the basic fallacy isn’t that computers can’t hear but rather that Human minds haven’t found the right measurement methods to program them appropriately. Ultimately AI will lead us to codify hitherto uncodified human sentiments such that computers can reflect them, we are just not there yet and I question whether pure two-dimensional, scalar models will ever appropriafely reflect the complex patterns of acoustics and human hearing. You are right on the spot ... BUT And it is a big BUT, Mimicking perfectly human feeling or perception (Turing Test) is not at all like feeling and perceiving with a real consciousness...There is always something lacking....In the case of conscious being versus non conscious one it is the INTERNAL link manifesting between all conscious being in the universe...They are ALL connected by one source shining through each one of them ... Derived technologically created robots are not....They dont reincarnate like in some famous novel of S-F....They mimic consciousness and can be very intelligent way more than human, but like said the great Italian neuroscientist Tononi intelligence scale and consciousness scale are different, intersect, but dont fuse together and diverge anyway.... Anayway! in this thread this is a debate about wire direction, and some acoustic concept about hearing and sound perception.... Not about transhumanist ideology.... I will refrain myself to go longer on this....Thank for your interesting post anyway..... |
@kevn,
methinks the basic fallacy isn’t that computers can’t hear but rather that Human minds haven’t found the right measurement methods to program them appropriately. Ultimately AI will lead us to codify hitherto uncodified human sentiments such that computers can reflect them, we are just not there yet and I question whether pure two-dimensional, scalar models will ever appropriafely reflect the complex patterns of acoustics and human hearing.
|
I am also in love with Elena Frolova....
then I think you'll like Anna Herman |
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/research-helping-scientists-understand-humans-recognize-voices-computers/story%3fid=60699647And so, I wondered - if human beings are not only able to recognise human voices quicker and better than computers, but also the nuance of mood in each voice heard, is this a reasonable step to believing that there are indeed some things in sound that computers are not able to measure? Keeping in mind, of course, that the subtlest timbral differences the human ear is capable of registering to know when the music they are hearing has a little more ‘air’ or realism, or a touch more focus of separation to each instrument or voice, is even less obvious (and measurable?) than the nuance of mood in a voice? |
“Finally this article about polynesian "primitive" navigators about to "see" their routes around islands very afar in the pacific is astounding about the INTERNAL GPS of human and say a lot about underestimating the perception of humans ” - mahgister
Thank you so much for this mahgister - it was a fantastic read : ) |
I haven’t listened to these songs for a long time and once again i note how emphatically all his unique intonations are conveyed in the pre-war 78 recordings. No modern recording can do that way, isn’t it strange? Completely outdated shellac beats technological HI-FI in some very important music features. I dont have personal experience of this fact but i really think that some very minute change between these 2 mediums could "percolate" through many scales to deliver audible different quality for the human hearing.... Anyway "sound" is the body and waves are the carrier of the By the way one of my most beloved composer with Bach and Bruckner is Scriabin... I am also in love with Elena Frolova.... |
dletch2, your explanation on the power cable can only impress those who do not know at what level the changes in the signal circuit are possible when replacing one cable with another. But let’s leave it on your conscience. As I understand, you agree that the audibility of the power cable can not be caused by physical reasons, and this is actually all that we need for the moment.
Meanwhile you put forward a second assumption that in a short piece of wire the frequency response can change when the wire is reversed. And It follows from the content that these changes in the frequency response go without the presence of signs of electrical asymmetry of the wire. According to Ohm’s Law, this cannot be.
What formulas you are relying on to assert such things can be possible?
|
mahgister
I had the impression to look in myself when i listen this music and look in this avatar So deep down you are a Russian Mahgister. This is very unexpected and pleasant. I haven't listened to these songs for a long time and once again i note how emphatically all his unique intonations are conveyed in the pre-war 78 recordings. No modern recording can do that way, isn't it strange? Completely outdated shellac beats technological HI-FI in some very important music features. Thank you. |
Where is Ernest Hemingway when you need him? And my insomnia is confirmed as I am still awake.
|
On the same points you have to explane your EXACT statement, that you made not long ago:
Dletch2Does not work that way. If the error is simply frequency response, the relationship between the perfect and imperfect signal never changes... No I don't have to explain it. YOU have to learn to understand it. You are not paying me for a university level education. Anton, In your direct quote, there is nothing like a logical analysis of the possible occurrence of audible distortions in the signal circuit when changing the power cable. I have to repeat, in order for your words to be at least somewhat similar to the evidence, you must provide: I don't have to provide anything, because 1, I never claimed a power cable would make any changes, and 2, see above, it is not my responsibility to educate you with the knowledge you lack. However, for those that are interested .... - Any increase in the line/neutral resistance or inductance of the power cord will in almost all cases reduce the ripple on the output of power supply in the piece of the audio equipment, with more reduction at higher harmonics of the line frequency.
- Any increase in the line/neutral resistance or inductance of the line cord will reduce the transmission of conducted EMI into the piece of equipment.
- Any increase in the line/neutral resistance and/or inductance will reduce the conducted and radiated emissions of the product that is connected to that line cord.
- Variation of the instantaneous ground potential between two pieces of equipment, which can be impacted by the line cords, can, dependent on the audio equipment design, result in noise being conducted to the audio signal and/or jitter in digital cable connections.
As a small starting list, none of which communicates audibility, but does not negate that these effects are real and detectable. |
It’s what we don’t know (scientifically measured) but feel/sense that can make a difference. What we feel in listening must be CORRELATED by concrete change, modification or experiment....Or measures if possible...Our sixth sense is often a response not always the initiator of the experience... We listen perhaps by a magical individual connection but also with for example acoustical and psycho acoustical law we can use and control... The "gist" of the matter is relating feeling and thinking in one perceiving act...Not rejecting one for the other... The war between subjectivist and objectivist is the result of a childish philosophical perspective... i reject each one in his narrow corner or introduce each one to the other for a dialogue....... then correcting your affirmation i will add that it is also what we could learn, what we know that ALSO can make a difference... There is NO magical "tweaks"... There is only controls in the working embeddings dimensions related to ANY audio system... But why some of these "controls device" work sometimes is not always very clear "scientifically"... Anyway even if you cannot measure all there is and even if some phenomenon could not be measured for sure, we must work with the feeling and the thinking process together not one against the other.... |
@millercarbon You nailed it in your first post. I saw a video concerning the deaf man hearing "music" through a balloon. It's what we don't know (scientifically measured) but feel/sense that can make a difference. Which maybe why so many highly rated components, speakers, cables, tweaks work in one system and not another, for one person or not for another. People have different feelings/senses and synergies for audio systems vary (tremendously). |
|
mahgister.., I apologize in advance, please do not answer if you think this is an immodest question. I've been going to ask you for a long time. You have a picture of the great Russian singer and poet Anatoly Vertinsky on your avatar, whose lyrics were of deep philosophy and whose performances were so extravagant that he stood completely apart from his more mundane colleagues. All this reminds me very much of you. I wonder is there any other connection between you and Anatoly Vertinsky? |
This article is clearer: https://phys.org/news/2013-02-human-fourier-uncertainty-principle.html «(Phys.org)—For the first time, physicists have found that humans can discriminate a sound’s frequency (related to a note’s pitch) and timing (whether a note comes before or after another note) more than 10 times better than the limit imposed by the Fourier uncertainty principle. Not surprisingly, some of the subjects with the best listening precision were musicians, but even non-musicians could exceed the uncertainty limit. The results rule out the majority of auditory processing brain algorithms that have been proposed, since only a few models can match this impressive human performance. The researchers, Jacob Oppenheim and Marcelo Magnasco at Rockefeller University in New York, have published their study on the first direct test of the Fourier uncertainty principle in human hearing in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. The Fourier uncertainty principle states that a time-frequency tradeoff exists for sound signals, so that the shorter the duration of a sound, the larger the spread of different types of frequencies is required to represent the sound. Conversely, sounds with tight clusters of frequencies must have longer durations. The uncertainty principle limits the precision of the simultaneous measurement of the duration and frequency of a sound. To investigate human hearing in this context, the researchers turned to psychophysics, an area of study that uses various techniques to reveal how physical stimuli affect human sensation. Using physics, these techniques can establish tight bounds on the performance of the senses..... The results have implications for how we understand the way that the brain processes sound, a question that has interested scientists for a long time. In the early 1970s, scientists found hints that human hearing could violate the uncertainty principle, but the scientific understanding and technical capabilities were not advanced enough to enable a thorough investigation. As a result, most of today’s sound analysis models are based on old theories that may now be revisited in order to capture the precision of human hearing. "In seminars, I like demonstrating how much information is conveyed in sound by playing the sound from the scene in Casablanca where Ilsa pleads, "Play it once, Sam," Sam feigns ignorance, Ilsa insists," Magnasco said. "You can recognize the text being spoken, but you can also recognize the volume of the utterance, the emotional stance of both speakers, the identity of the speakers including the speaker’s accent (Ingrid’s faint Swedish, though her character is Norwegian, which I am told Norwegians can distinguish; Sam’s AAVE [African American Vernacular English]), the distance to the speaker (Ilsa whispers but she’s closer, Sam loudly feigns ignorance but he’s in the back), the position of the speaker (in your house you know when someone’s calling you from another room, in which room they are!), the orientation of the speaker (looking at you or away from you), an impression of the room (large, small, carpeted). "The issue is that many fields, both basic and commercial, in sound analysis try to reconstruct only one of these, and for that they may use crude models of early hearing that transmit enough information for their purposes. But the problem is that when your analysis is a pipeline, whatever information is lost on a given stage can never be recovered later. So if you try to do very fancy analysis of, let’s say, vocal inflections of a lyric soprano, you just cannot do it with cruder models." By ruling out many of the simpler models of auditory processing, the new results may help guide researchers to identify the true mechanism that underlies human auditory hyperacuity. Understanding this mechanism could have wide-ranging applications in areas such as speech recognition; sound analysis and processing; and radar, sonar, and radio astronomy. "You could use fancier methods in radar or sonar to try to analyze details beyond uncertainty, since you control the pinging waveform; in fact, bats do," Magnasco said. Building on the current results, the researchers are now investigating how human hearing is more finely tuned toward natural sounds, and also studying the temporal factor in hearing.
"Such increases in performance cannot occur in general without some assumptions," Magnasco said. "For instance, if you’re testing accuracy vs. resolution, you need to assume all signals are well separated. We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, as opposed to abstract time-series; this comes under the rubric of ’ecological theories of perception’ in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry. We just tested that subjects do much better in discriminating timing and frequency in the forward version than in the time-reversed version (manuscript submitted). Therefore the nervous system uses specific information on the physics of sound production to extract information from the sensory stream.»
Magnasco is not a "crook" like you alleged for Essien, Magnasco is peer rewiewed and his work go in the SAME direction than Essien... dletch2 this remark of Magnasco goes hand in hand with the experiments of Essien and give the same direction of research than Essien for another reason, the Gabor limit violation by the ears/brain, instead, in the case of Essien, of the revisitation of the monochord experiment linked to the production and perception of pitch... i will repeat the words of Magnasco with uppercase for the important word: « We have indications that the hearing system is highly attuned to the sounds you actually hear in nature, AS OPPOSED TO ABSTRACT TIME SERIES; this comes under the rubric of ’ecological theories of perception’ in which you try to understand the space of natural objects being analyzed in an ecologically relevant setting, and has been hugely successful in vision. Many sounds in nature are produced by an abrupt transfer of energy followed by slow, damped decay, and hence have broken time-reversal symmetry.» Then retract your word about Essien at least....And admit that his doctorate thesis is not writtent by a "crook".... |
Mahgister, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understand that this does not mean that humans have "magical" properties. dletch2 i am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understand that all my posts in the last 24 hours related NOT to magic but to scientific fact demonstrating the little we know about the limits of humans sense system and the way in which this sense perceptive power is related affect us... Pitch is still tone, as it is a definition and it is continuous, it does not involve attack and decay. What you called a "definition" and by that you means something purely arbitrary or subjective WITHOUT connection to a deeper reality is discontinuous when played on an instrument producing with it his own timbre experience...And this listening experience of pitch is the usual one by musicians.... Then a pitch is not an abstract continuous tone played by a machine....This reduction betrays the acoustical condition of his human experience...pitch always implies decay and attack, or a playing vibrating particulat timbre of an instriment in concrete musical world because it is a human perception....Isolating from his experience its associate frequencies is correct at the condition to keep the baby when you throw the water....The fact that pitch to be distinguish from noise must be associated to some continuous frequency dont means that all there is about pitch is this condition... Instruments can time two waves of the same frequency to way better than 1/4 wavelength. Here also our fundamental different perspective create complete misunderstanding.... Accuracy by a measuring instrument is not accuracy for the listening ears/brain... Reducing the second concept of accuracy to a the narrow technological window of the other tool is good research BUT does not replace investigation in the specific power of the human ears...The human ears use his own tool, non linear one, and many part of the brain and body are sollicited by the act of hearing.... The fact that instruments can time 2 waves better than human refer to a pure numerical concept of accuracy.... The ears do it his own way surprizingly it seems but this ears accuracy serves " an evolutive and semiotic goal " which is completely alien to our own measuring tools.... Then dont let your techological ideology which consist in the downplaying of anything meaningful to be pure "accident" or pure material phenomenon... Or called someone like me who dont reject science but refuse to be materialist a magician like you already did in a pejorative way.... Consciousness is a primal, original, irreductible phenomenon, without which there is no facts, and which itself cannot be reduced to facts.... But you are the audio professionnal not me.... But i speak my tought at the risk of being wrong....I dont think i am wrong here with these general observations...
|
Dletch2, no one is interested in rereading an infinite number of quotes and analyzing them. I've definitely covered up a question that you didn't answer directly by engaging in abstract demagoguery. I apologize that it looked like a direct quote. Dletch2
THIS IS THE EXACT WORDS I USED!!!
In your direct quote, there is nothing like a logical analysis of the possible occurrence of audible distortions in the signal circuit when changing the power cable. I have to repeat, in order for your words to be at least somewhat similar to the evidence, you must provide: 1 - numerical or relative estimation of the level of possible interference 2 - numerical or relative estimation of the level at which the interference penetrate the signal circuit 3 - In what exact place it penetrates the signal circuit On the same points you have to explane your EXACT statement, that you made not long ago: Dletch2Does not work that way. If the error is simply frequency response, the
relationship between the perfect and imperfect signal never changes... So, first of all you should explain, how the difference in frequency response can occur when a short piece of wire is reversed? Numerical or relative please. |
@anton_stepichev, you really need to get your facts straight! I never wrote this quote that you are assigning to me. In fact, when I do a search on those exact words on this forum, the only person who has posted them is YOU. As you used the words, "STATEMENT", that implies you were directly quoting me. You were not directly quoting, and if you think you were paraphrasing me, you are not.
anton_stepichev OP77 posts04-24-2021 1:50am
dletch2, you haven't finished explaining your previous statement yet:
"The interference of a power cable can get into the signal circuit and become audible not as periodic interference of 60Hz harmonics, but as non-periodic one so that initial frequency of 60 hz is perceived as something related to a musical signal (for example, frequency response), and not as interference or noise."
THIS IS THE EXACT WORDS I USED!!! There is nothing to explain in this. This is electronics and signals 101. Anything I have written is only muddy to you because you do not understand it. I can't help you on that. We are obviously not working at the same levels. 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. |
Who “listens” to electricity or electrical characteristics/properties? Sound is created, or in this instance recreated, by a vibrating transducer(s); how is that movement measured objectively/scientifically?
I am definitely in the camp where “everything matters”. I have no idea how some of the tweaks I’ve incorporated work, or even if they do. If I “notice” a change over extended listening +/-, perceived or otherwise, the answer is quite clear. |
I would believe whatever differences there are would show up most in cases where there is an impedance mismatch which is much more likely with zero feedback amps, but that should not really matter if one has addressed impedance matching between amps and speakers properly, which is the right way to do it for best results, so in that case impedance matching issues due to a zero feedback amp is a moot point. This would be virtually impossible, since impedance is variable with frequency across the audio band, impedance of speakers are not complex, and not controlled anywhere within the speaker itself. Given the mechanical nature, it may not even be a practical goal. |
The time-frequency uncertainty principle states that the product of the temporal and frequency extents of a signal cannot be smaller than 1/(4?). We study human ability to simultaneously judge the frequency and the timing of a sound. Our subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit, sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity. Our results establish a lower bound for the nonlinearity and complexity of the algorithms employed by our brains in parsing transient sounds, rule out simple “linear filter” models of early auditory processing, and highlight timing acuity as a central feature in auditory object processing. (Emphasis added.)» Mahgister, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understand that this does not mean that humans have "magical" properties. It only means that our auditory system is not purely tone based, which again, has not been overly debated in over a century. Pitch is still tone, as it is a definition and it is continuous, it does not involve attack and decay. Instruments can time two waves of the same frequency to way better than 1/4 wavelength. Say you have two A/D recording the same sound, at 44.1KHz, 20KHz bandwidth limited. They are asynchronous, i.e. there is no synchronization of there A/D. In software I can resample and align those two recordings to an accuracy of sub-microseconds determinant on the SNR/THD. So much for 1/4 wavelength. |
william53b
Yes, but are your circuit boards mounted in the right direction? There are no circuit boards there. |
mahgister
I never wrote only for you....But for the others readers ...
Of course, for everyone, I didn't mean the opposite. Excuse my clumsy English. |
Yes, but are your circuit boards mounted in the right direction? |
I never wrote only for you....But for the others readers ... You have entered this subject years ago already if i read correctly....You know electronics not me....And you listen yourself to your wires,not me... But i am interested by the consequences of this matter.... His meanings for philosophical research.... mahgister,
to be honest, I did not think that in this topic I can learn something new to me, but you have already brought a lot of interesting information that goes in parallel with my audio practice. I am going to post some of your posts on my site. Of course, if you don’t mind.
Regards For sure you can do what you want with my posts... Regards.... |
mahgister, to be honest, I did not think that in this topic I can learn something new to me, but you have already brought a lot of interesting information that goes in parallel with my audio practice. I am going to post some of your posts on my site. Of course, if you don't mind. Regards |
mapman
Ok now we are getting somewhere. Have you done that? Where are the results published for those who might be interested?
I have an article in Russian https://www.backtomusic.ru/do/radio/testing, there is a description of a lot of subjective experiments made using the testing system, but what can they give you, other than to take the topic aside? I would believe whatever differences there are would show up most in cases where there is an impedance mismatch which is much more likely with zero feedback amps, but that should not really matter if one has addressed impedance matching between amps and speakers properly, which is the right way to do it for best results, so in that case impedance matching issues due to a zero feedback amp is a moot point.
That's a shot in the air, sorry. Whatever the impedance mismatch is, it will remain the same for any changes in the area of J1 and J2. It will not prevent us from conducting the experiment, all other things being equal. |
dletch2194 posts
04-23-2021 11:46pm
And it turns out that, for example, in a RIAA corrector, the error of the wire going from the MC head to the transformer will be amplified almost 1000 times!
Does not work that way. If the error is simply frequency response, the relationship between the perfect and imperfect signal never changes.
dletch2, you haven't finished explaining your previous statement yet: "The interference of a power cable can get into the signal circuit and become audible not as periodic interference of 60Hz harmonics, but as non-periodic one so that initial frequency of 60 hz is perceived as something related to a musical signal (for example, frequency response), and not as interference or noise." After you make this one clear, I expect the next explanation from you: How the difference in frequency response can occur when a short piece of wire is reversed? And please, no more muddy theories. You are required to: 1 - numerical or relative estimation of the level of possible interference 2 - numerical or relative estimation of the level at which the interference penetrate the signal circuit 3 - In what exact place it penetrates there the signal circuit |
Then what?
We need experiment and we need to discover some individual able to hear this hypothetical change...
But ridiculizing the possibility of sensing this phenomena is not a good point of departure for a scientific journey...
Speculating about this possibility is better and looking for some who experimented it and wanted to be tested a better one for sure...
But a test organized to ridicule someone or debunking him is NOT A TEST....And certainly not a rigorous scientific test created in good faith and by honest curiosity.....
Then "sunday skeptic of the scientism club" or children of James Randi or professional snake oiler hunters are not useful to science here...No more than religious zealot or marketings people.....
It is easy to understand....
A climate of trust only make thinking possible....And discovery possible...
Doubt is a tool not a vocation or a working field.....
Human need beliefs, and need doubts; but human need over all to think and thinking process is alway using these 2 tools simultaneously...
|
Seriously, Some things cannot be measured as accurately as bio sense. Example, a dogs smell is more sensitive than any current instrument. Because it cannot be measured does not mean it is not there.
This is audiogon. You must have confused it with smellogon, the other website. what is the adress of this new site: "smellogon" ? is this is from this site: http://vosshall.rockefeller.edu/assets/file/BushdidScience2014.pdf Or perhaps this one on forgotten abilities: https://www.nature.com/articles/nn1819 Perhaps we must create Smellogon.com ourself and link it to audiogon... Finally this article about polynesian "primitive" navigators about to "see" their routes around islands very afar in the pacific is astounding about the INTERNAL GPS of human and say a lot about underestimating the perception of humans
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/magazine/the-secrets-of-the-wave-pilots.htmlan extract of this article that speak volume about the understimated human perceotive abilities.... :
«Genz
met Alson Kelen and Korent Joel in Majuro in 2005, when Genz was 28. A
soft-spoken, freckled Wisconsinite and former Peace Corps volunteer who
grew up sailing with his father, Genz was then studying for a doctorate
in anthropology at the University of Hawaii. His adviser there, Ben
Finney, was an anthropologist who helped lead the voyage of Hokulea, a
replica Polynesian sailing canoe, from Hawaii to Tahiti and back in
1976; the success of the trip, which involved no modern instrumentation
and was meant to prove the efficacy of indigenous ships and navigational
methods, stirred a resurgence of native Hawaiian language, music, hula
and crafts. Joel and Kelen dreamed of a similar revival for Marshallese
sailing — the only way, they figured, for wave-piloting to endure — and
contacted Finney for guidance. But Finney was nearing retirement, so he
suggested that Genz go in his stead. With their chief’s blessing, Joel
and Kelen offered Genz rare access, with one provision: He would not
learn wave-piloting himself; he would simply document Kelen’s training. Joel
immediately asked Genz to bring scientists to the Marshalls who could
help Joel understand the mechanics of the waves he knew only by feel —
especially one called di lep, or backbone, the foundation of wave-piloting, which (in ri-meto lore) ran between atolls like a road. Joel’s grandfather had taught him to feel the di lep
at the Rongelap reef: He would lie on his back in a canoe, blindfolded,
while the old man dragged him around the coral, letting him experience
how it changed the movement of the waves. But when Joel took Genz out in the Pacific on borrowed yachts and told him they were encountering the di lep,
he couldn’t feel it. Kelen said he couldn’t, either. When
oceanographers from the University of Hawaii came to look for it, their
equipment failed to detect it. The idea of a wave-road between islands,
they told Genz, made no sense. Privately, Genz began to fear that the di lep
was imaginary, that wave-piloting was already extinct. On one research
trip in 2006, when Korent Joel went below deck to take a nap, Genz
changed the yacht’s course. When Joel awoke, Genz kept Joel away from
the GPS device, and to the relief of them both, Joel directed the boat
toward land. Later, he also passed his ri-meto test, judged by his chief, with Genz and Kelen crewing. Worlds
away, Huth, a worrier by nature, had become convinced that preserving
mankind’s ability to way-find without technology was not just an
abstract mental exercise but also a matter of life and death. In 2003,
while kayaking alone in Nantucket Sound, fog descended, and Huth —
spring-loaded and boyish, with a near-photographic memory — found his
way home using local landmarks, the wind and the direction of the
swells. Later, he learned that two young undergraduates, out paddling in
the same fog, had become disoriented and drowned. This prompted him to
begin teaching a class on primitive navigation techniques. When Huth met
Genz at an academic conference in 2012 and described the methodology of
his search for the Higgs boson and dark energy — subtracting dominant
wave signals from a field, until a much subtler signal appears
underneath — Genz told him about the di lep,
and it captured Huth’s imagination. If it was real, and if it really
ran back and forth between islands, its behavior was unknown to physics
and would require a supercomputer to model. That a person might be able
to sense it bodily amid the cacophony generated by other ocean phenomena
was astonishing. Huth began creating possible di lep
simulations in his free time and recruited van Vledder’s help.
Initially, the most puzzling detail of Genz’s translation of Joel’s
description was his claim that the di lep
connected each atoll and island to all 33 others. That would yield 561
paths, far too many for even the most adept wave pilot to memorize. Most
of what we know about ocean waves and currents — including what will
happen to coastlines as climate change leads to higher sea levels (of
special concern to the low-lying Netherlands and Marshall Islands) —
comes from models that use global wind and bathymetry data to simulate
what wave patterns probably look like at a given place and time. Our
understanding of wave mechanics, on which those models are based, is
wildly incomplete. To improve them, experts must constantly check their
assumptions with measurements and observations. Perhaps, Huth and van
Vledder thought, there were di leps in every ocean, invisible roads that no one was seeing because they didn’t know to look.... »
|
More seriously now and perhaps nearer to our debate this is extraordinary: «We’ve all heard of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. That puts a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which position and momentum of a particle can be simultaneously known. The more precision for one, the less for the other. There’s a similar idea in acoustics, called the Fourier Uncertainty Principle. Fourier Analysis, a commonly used mathematical method of deconstructing complex waves into their components, is the basis of this uncertainty principle. Unlike Heisenberg’s, it represents not an intrinsic property of the source, but a limit on the capabilities of linear algorithms to analyze it.
It deals with two properties of sound: frequency (or pitch) and timing. If you read music, you know that pitch is the vertical axis and timing the horizontal axis. According to the Fourier Uncertainty Principle, these two properties cannot be simultaneously determined above a limit, called the Gabor limit. This implies that the better two pitches can be distinguished, the less accurately the time between them can be known, and vice versa.
Tell that to the human brain. In a new paper in Physical Review Letters (free download on arXiv), Jacob N. Oppenheim and Marcello O. Magnasco of Rockefeller University tested human subjects and found “Human Time-Frequency Acuity Beats the Fourier Uncertainty Principle.“ The time-frequency uncertainty principle states that the product of the temporal and frequency extents of a signal cannot be smaller than 1/(4?). We study human ability to simultaneously judge the frequency and the timing of a sound. Our subjects often exceeded the uncertainty limit, sometimes by more than tenfold, mostly through remarkable timing acuity. Our results establish a lower bound for the nonlinearity and complexity of the algorithms employed by our brains in parsing transient sounds, rule out simple “linear filter” models of early auditory processing, and highlight timing acuity as a central feature in auditory object processing. (Emphasis added.)»
https://evolutionnews.org/2013/02/human_hearing_o/ This is the vulgarisation.... The real article is this: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.044301 All this is spectacular example of limitations alleged in the past and overcome.... We dont know what sound IS... We dont understand human hearing .... But science go on enlightening us about deepest and deepest imprevisible discoveries... |
Reality is never what we assumed it is.... Science exist and demonstrate it for us...With new concepts but also new methods of investigation... «Are wind farms harmful to humans? Some believe so, others refute this; this controversial topic makes emotions run high. To give the debate more objectivity, an international team of experts dealt with the fundamentals of hearing in the lower limit range of the audible frequency range (i.e. infrasound), but also in the upper limit range (i.e. ultrasound). The project, which is part of the European Metrology Research Programme (EMRP), was coordinated by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). At PTB, not only acoustics experts, but also experts from the fields of biomagnetism (MEG) and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) were involved in the research activities. They have found out that humans can hear sounds lower than had previously been assumed. And the mechanisms of sound perception are much more complex than previously thought.» https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150710123506.htm This is not the vulgarisation above but the real paper : https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174420 All that prove NOTHING for the audible detection of wire direction for sure... But knowing that human can hear 8 hertz sound and above in the higher frequencies and knowing that the neural infrastructure of hearing implicate some area of the brain normally not associated with hearing says a lot.... Then apriori ridiculizing claim or absolute negation about the real limits of hearing in humans is serious... We dont know.... We dont know what hearing IS.... We sont know what a sound IS... We use water in very sophisticated technology and we dont know what water is.... Saying water is H2O is not a complete explanation and certainly not an understanding... We use light in laser technology but we dont know what light is... We study the prime numbes and use them with very complicate and deep mathematical tools but we absolutely dont know what prime numbers are.... Then we must relax and think.... And making stupid joke while pretending we know something is child play... The subject of this thread interest me a lot but i dont have any opinion for or against wire direction... It is an experiment.... at least in thinking....It is interesting.... It is related to deep questions... Idiots beware.... |
Seriously, Some things cannot be measured as accurately as bio sense. Example, a dogs smell is more sensitive than any current instrument. Because it cannot be measured does not mean it is not there. This is audiogon. You must have confused it with smellogon, the other website. |
bobandcindy10162 posts04-23-2021 9:43pmSince audio is an AC waveform; you hear EXACTLY the same thing as before you swapped ends.
No. You hear the same thing because the differences in direction are too small. AC has nothing to do with it. |
I hear the wind cry Mary....give it a rest.... |
Since audio is an AC waveform; you hear EXACTLY the same thing as before you swapped ends. |
I borrowed Vincent Van Gogh‘a knife the other day. I sliced off both earlobes, swapped them left to right, sutured them back on. Darn what a difference! |
I think the proper response is that it is not the percption of what the ears hear. But what is between the ears!
Seriously, Some things cannot be measured as accurately as bio sense. Example, a dogs smell is more sensitive than any current instrument. Because it cannot be measured does not mean it is not there.
|
And it turns out that, for example, in a RIAA corrector, the error of the wire going from the MC head to the transformer will be amplified almost 1000 times! Does not work that way. If the error is simply frequency response, the relationship between the perfect and imperfect signal never changes. That would be true for most things dependent on the cable with the exception of noise.
And how many different wires are there in the system? Hundreds. And all these errors that occurred in the preliminary cascades will be amplified by hundreds or tens of times and superimposed on the useful signal.
Again, see my last comment. A microscopic error on the edge of perception multiplied by such a caos will become egregious. But we do not observe such errors.
So there is no polarity, semi conductivity or any other ELECTRICAL assymetry in a wire. No chaos multiplier. We can observe asymmetry, just not easily at audio frequencies as the variation in the two port transfer function compared to the source/load impedance is not large enough at low frequencies. At high frequencies it is. This is simple fact. No point in ignoring it. None of which matters to the audibility of cable direction. Unless you purposely went out of your way to create a cable that is directional, you will never hear the change in direction (shielding aside). I could certainly see someone who does not understand how cables (or electronics) work, doing something foolish, like - convincing themselves they can hear the direction in a single conductor, when what they really did was completely change the interaction of that single conductor with its surroundings
- moving around speaker cables with non-fixed widely spaced conductors (Tellurium).
- You have to be careful how the shield is connected for shielded phono cables, as the connection of the shield can have a big change on capacitive loading.
- With a high capacitance interconnect, the connection of the shield, how the shield is connected in the component, and the source impedance can all come into play. Conductor to conductor capacitance could be 50pF/foot. However, you can have another 50pF/foot from cable to shield, and that shield could be signal ground, capacitively coupled earth ground, etc. The loading difference of a 6ft cable at 20KHz is 13K ohm versus 26K ohm. Some tube equipment has fairly high output impedance. If the connectivity is different in one direction from the other, there could be an audible effect, not just because of noise.
Self proved that there are no audible errors in the signal, even in more complex cases than just a single wire. Technically I believe he proved he couldn't find any. He also said that wires can't be directional because the signals are AC. He was wrong on AC, so I am not sure how much faith I can put in his other findings. |
cmichaelo2 posts
04-23-2021 5:16pm
Maybe someone already explained this, but I simply didn’t have the time to look through the whole thread. Due to manufacturing tolerances, a cable isn’t electrically the same from both directions.
Self proved that there are no audible errors in the signal, even in more complex cases than just a single wire. It can be proofed by simple logic either. Let’s assume that the speaker wire has an error, but it is microscopic, on the verge of perception and measurement. Then, we will have to agree that the error is common to all the wires. And it turns out that, for example, in a RIAA corrector, the error of the wire going from the MC head to the transformer will be amplified almost 1000 times! And how many different wires are there in the system? Hundreds. And all these errors that occurred in the preliminary cascades will be amplified by hundreds or tens of times and superimposed on the useful signal. A microscopic error on the edge of perception multiplied by such a caos will become egregious. But we do not observe such errors. So there is no polarity, semi conductivity or any other ELECTRICAL assymetry in a wire. |
Please note - the direction of current travel in a uniformly sectioned copper wire would have absolutely zero effect on the accuracy of the signal transmitted. Where is the logical evidence to the contrary?
Neither copper nor the dielectric is truly uniform, so there goes that out the window. You still can't hear any direction, but lets stick to facts. |
What ever happened to science and the basic knowledge of electrical theory? Do you think that legendary Marantz audio perfectionists like Sid Smith and Dick Sequerra would have recommended basic copper lamp cord of the proper gauge (depending on the speaker distance) to connect their superb amplifiers? These guys were obsessively fussy, with discriminating ears - to the most subtle nuances in sound quality.
C'mon audiophiles - time to get off your "snake oil" train and talk about putting effort and money into equipment that truly makes a technical (and thus audible) difference. I have yet to read or hear any kind of logical explanation for the claims about the superior performance of pricey power, or speaker cables - other than purely subjective conclusions based on "so-called" listening tests. Please note - the direction of current travel in a uniformly sectioned copper wire would have absolutely zero effect on the accuracy of the signal transmitted. Where is the logical evidence to the contrary?
|
Using it, you can evaluate the coloration and right direction of almost any radio component (L,C,R) including wire.
Ok now we are getting somewhere. Have you done that? Where are the results published for those who might be interested? I would believe whatever differences there are would show up most in cases where there is an impedance mismatch which is much more likely with zero feedback amps, but that should not really matter if one has addressed impedance matching between amps and speakers properly, which is the right way to do it for best results, so in that case impedance matching issues due to a zero feedback amp is a moot point. |
mapman's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2xmapman18,857 posts
04-23-2021 5:12pm
My first question in order to be able to anser tht one would be which wire specifically are we talking about?
We are talking about any short piece (say 5 inches) of single-core metal wire of medium thickness. All wires sound dissimilar when reversed, only to different degrees. To feel it clearly, you must have a special testing system. The simplest possible tube amp with no feedback which is paired with a single broadband speaker. The one I handmade for tests is: https://www.backtomusic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/schematics-testing-audio-equpment.gif. Using it, you can evaluate the coloration and right direction of almost any radio component (L,C,R) including wire. The test sample is connected to J1 and J2 connectors. |
