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
12,845 posts
 
A blind test has nothing to do with statistic
the CONTEXT where blindtest are the most used is in the pharmacological industry...--> then statistical meaning provide a value to the blindtest methodology...

I only need to test that 1 person blind to refute their claim.
Precisely i never negate the utility of blindtest i ONLY affirm that it make sense for small audible change....For one person working in a blackbox situation for example......

BUT there is no scientific validity associated to a blindtest without a statistical significant number of subject...

In the case of a " learned bias" like in the experiment of Anton a simple improvised  blindtest cannot prove anything ... The reason is simple: you cannot ask to someone to be test for a bias he has not learned first.... Then to test a learned bias we must construct first a tube amplifier with directed wiring... And we must learn to LISTEN to the audible difference which is at stake.... A directed wiring amplifier is not a Ted Denney cable...We must work with one right amplifier first, and second we must LISTEN to it and learn about HOW to listen....Aftet that, a single blindtest for the user by the user is possible ( blackbox situation)... and ONLY after all that a general public blindtest is realizable...Do you understand this simple series of orderly event and fact?

I dont think you understand this because in a past discussion i remember that i cited wikipedia to prove that you have not understood the complex concept of "bias" ....For you it was the innate subjective factor making human prone to illusion... But a Bias can be learned and it is something that can make man able to perceive something deeper also.... Then the difference between the 2 types of bias ask for a different preparation before a blindtest....



Your main tac-tic is to First accuse somebody to be ignorant after that distorting what he has said and finally simplifying all toward your point..

You answer NO ONE OF THE TEN POINTS i argue about in my last post save the only one easy to distort...


You are pitiful....

i understand that you are done with me because it is too much work for you to read all the references i give and too complicated to refute real fact...

Stay with some aspect of Maxwell equation and dont go out....You will be safe...

At least now you have learned with me that psychoacoustic is not reducible to acoustic nor to any measuring tool either...

It is not necessary to thank me....



rodman99999
6,030 posts
 
@dulledge:    You CLAIM that you don't read what I post, because you can't fault anything I post.        Nothing but excuses!           You're nothing more than the typical uneducated/pseudo-intellectual, obtuse, Naysayer Doctrine adherent.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
Still on blind testing?

In any case, blind test has nothing to do with statistics although results may be statistically evaluated. It is less complicated than that sentence.
glupson
7,842 posts
 
"You're nothing more than the typical uneducated/pseudo-intellectual, obtuse, Naysayer Doctrine adherent."
I will jump on the pseudo-intellectual wagon and try to polish it into...

You're nothing more than the typical uneducated/pseudo-intellectual and obtuse Naysayer Doctrine adherent.

Better? Worse? Verdict, please.
Post removed 
More to discover