2. cables
  3. 166070-159469

What do we hear when we change the direction of a wire?

Douglas Self wrote a devastating article about audio anomalies back in 1988. With all the necessary knowledge and measuring tools, he did not detect any supposedly audible changes in the electrical signal. Self and his colleagues were sure that they had proved the absence of anomalies in audio, but over the past 30 years, audio anomalies have not disappeared anywhere, at the same time the authority of science in the field of audio has increasingly become questioned. It's hard to believe, but science still cannot clearly answer the question of what electricity is and what sound is! (see article by A.J.Essien).

For your information: to make sure that no potentially audible changes in the electrical signal occur when we apply any "audio magic" to our gear, no super equipment is needed. The smallest step-change in amplitude that can be detected by ear is about 0.3dB for a pure tone. In more realistic situations it is 0.5 to 1.0dB'". This is about a 10% change. (Harris J.D.). At medium volume, the voltage amplitude at the output of the amplifier is approximately 10 volts, which means that the smallest audible difference in sound will be noticeable when the output voltage changes to 1 volt. Such an error is impossible not to notice even using a conventional voltmeter, but Self and his colleagues performed much more accurate measurements, including ones made directly on the music signal using Baxandall subtraction technique - they found no error even at this highest level.

As a result, we are faced with an apparently unsolvable problem: those of us who do not hear the sound of wires, relying on the authority of scientists, claim that audio anomalies are BS. However, people who confidently perceive this component of sound are forced to make another, the only possible conclusion in this situation: the electrical and acoustic signals contain some additional signal(s) that are still unknown to science, and which we perceive with a certain sixth sense.

If there are no electrical changes in the signal, then there are no acoustic changes, respectively, hearing does not participate in the perception of anomalies. What other options can there be?

Regards.
anton_stepichev
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,960 posts
 
Standard practise is when designer blindtest for himself in the course of his work..

No one organize blindtest when he sells nothing...

The test is trying for ourself first what can he do?

Do you want that  he deliver the amp to be test to you by postal service free of charge?

And what you would say the day after your own private blindtest ? That you hear something ? Whithout even knowiing what listen to and how ?

Your instantaneous test for a minute will be equal his  years of dedication?

What is your "standard practice" is a blind belief in  tools measures or placebo effect allegation is a childish attitude to say the least...


djones51
4,947 posts
 
Well no, standard practice would be have a third party do the blind test before you come to a conclusion. Even if a third party did a blind test and heard a difference it still does not follow that the difference is due to unknown signals and a sixth sense. That isn't how science works. 
dletch2
455 posts
 
If someone wants to test a theory by jumping off a building to see if they will really die, do we praise their curiosity and be polite and civil? NO.


The only difference here is the outcome is not going to cause death. It does not make the pursuit any less flawed.  We know jumping off a building will kill you. Everyone accepts it because it is painfully obvious. For a portion of the population with the knowledge and experience we know (not think), know, that wire direction in this case will be inaudible. We also know that blind testing must be used. Not think. Know.


If someone claimed to make a perpetual motion machine, do we blindly accept their claim, or do we first explain to them why that is impossible, and then, after they show their experiment, point out all the flaws?  This is what we have done, but the person is still claiming their perpetual motion machine works while refusing to validating their work, effectively saying, "trust me". This is not respectful behavior.
djones51
4,947 posts
 
The purpose of blind testing is to try and find truth without bias. It might not always succeed but it's a tool like any other. It doesn't have to be about selling things.
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,960 posts
 
If someone wants to test a theory by jumping off a building to see if they will really die, do we praise their curiosity and be polite and civil? NO.
You act like Edison saying to the ignorant crowd that Tesla idea will kill people and they are evidently absurd... Who knows if his ideas are absurd?

What is the difference between Edison and you here?

Your blindtest impossible to realize here with a blunt rejection of the person ideas in this case are bad faith ...

Your accusation here BEG THE QUESTION....I can understand that your "knowledge" could not justify your belief, but accusing him of lying is absolutely in the actual sitruation totally inappropriate...Save by arrogance...

I will go walking my steam outside.....

If someone claimed to make a perpetual motion machine, do we blindly accept their claim, or do we first explain to them why that is impossible, and then, after they show their experiment, point out all the flaws? This is what we have done, but the person is still claiming their perpetual motion machine works while refusing to validating their work, effectively saying, "trust me". This is not respectful behavior.
More to discover