The power of psychoacoustics
This somewhat unrelated story is highly amusing and beautifully illustrates the power of mind over music...
My interest in hi-fi began when I got a part-time job at a fancy hi-fi store, as a med student back in the mid eighties. One well-heeled customer invited one of the other salespersons over to listen to the dramatic difference he'd made to his system.
Anybody remember those "electret foils" of Peter Belt? Well Manfred had stuck dozens of these little foil triangles all over the place to cancel out God only knows how many alleged electromagnetic disturbances/impurities/whatever. For my money such nonsense belongs right up there with directional copper and blue markers on CD edges... but let's leave that there for a moment.
Anyway, Manfred had a substantial system: Krell amp, Spectral pre-amp, Peter Townsend Rock reference turntable and Accoustat 4+4 speakers. Halfway through their oohing and aahing about soundstage and imagery, nobody noticed as I flipped the MONO switch on the pre-amp...
Would you believe neither Manfred nor an experienced hi-fi salesman noticed? They carried right on waxng lyrical about the phenomenal soundstage and imaging... And they were MIGHTILY ****ed off when I confessed what I had done!
Now I am NOT saying there is no difference between stereo and mono... in fact it is a huge audible difference. Far more so than cables, foils or any other audio snake-oil. But they still "heard" only the foils. Makes you think...
This somewhat unrelated story is highly amusing and beautifully illustrates the power of mind over music...
My interest in hi-fi began when I got a part-time job at a fancy hi-fi store, as a med student back in the mid eighties. One well-heeled customer invited one of the other salespersons over to listen to the dramatic difference he'd made to his system.
Anybody remember those "electret foils" of Peter Belt? Well Manfred had stuck dozens of these little foil triangles all over the place to cancel out God only knows how many alleged electromagnetic disturbances/impurities/whatever. For my money such nonsense belongs right up there with directional copper and blue markers on CD edges... but let's leave that there for a moment.
Anyway, Manfred had a substantial system: Krell amp, Spectral pre-amp, Peter Townsend Rock reference turntable and Accoustat 4+4 speakers. Halfway through their oohing and aahing about soundstage and imagery, nobody noticed as I flipped the MONO switch on the pre-amp...
Would you believe neither Manfred nor an experienced hi-fi salesman noticed? They carried right on waxng lyrical about the phenomenal soundstage and imaging... And they were MIGHTILY ****ed off when I confessed what I had done!
Now I am NOT saying there is no difference between stereo and mono... in fact it is a huge audible difference. Far more so than cables, foils or any other audio snake-oil. But they still "heard" only the foils. Makes you think...
SY said:
That about sums it up.
And his absolute refusal to participate in a series of blind tests so that this phenomenon can be properly verified and documented (the directionality of wire would have implications far beyond the world of high-end audio) leaves me wondering if he's not just playing a big joke on everyone.
How 'bout you, Frank? Postage to Belgium can't be any more than postage to Oz.
se
Re: Still Asking For Answers................
Great. So then you won't mind participating in a formal listening test?
If an effect is shown to actually be audible, it needn't be explained by simple physics theory. It just needs to be established that it's audible.
We're not talking about your device. We're talking about the directionality of wires and the claims that this is audible.
I've got a device that fits your description above too. I call it a diode. So what?
Again, we're not talking about your devices. We're talking about your claim that wire is directional and audible.
Great. But it's ultimately nothing more than an empty claim.
Ditto.
Which is why I asked YOU to be the participant of the test I proposed. Since you claim to have the equipment and the skills, then any null result can't be simply dismissed because the participant lacked the appropriate listening skills and appropriate equipment.
I didn't present the psychology argument as ANY sort of proof. I only present the psychology argument as a POSSIBLE cause. And that until that POSSIBLE cause has been eliminated by means other than ego, empty claims and hand-waving, then that POSSIBLE cause will always remain as an ambiguity.
I understand that perfectly well. And I never presented psychology as the ONLY possible reason. Only as A possible reason. Which until it can be safely ruled out, will always be A possible reason and you will never know what the REAL truth may be.
As Sherlock Holmes used to say, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth.
As long as psychology remains among the possibilities, then you haven't reached the truth.
se
mrfeedback said:
Great. So then you won't mind participating in a formal listening test?
If an effect is shown to actually be audible, it needn't be explained by simple physics theory. It just needs to be established that it's audible.
We're not talking about your device. We're talking about the directionality of wires and the claims that this is audible.
I've got a device that fits your description above too. I call it a diode. So what?
Again, we're not talking about your devices. We're talking about your claim that wire is directional and audible.
Great. But it's ultimately nothing more than an empty claim.
Ditto.
Which is why I asked YOU to be the participant of the test I proposed. Since you claim to have the equipment and the skills, then any null result can't be simply dismissed because the participant lacked the appropriate listening skills and appropriate equipment.
I didn't present the psychology argument as ANY sort of proof. I only present the psychology argument as a POSSIBLE cause. And that until that POSSIBLE cause has been eliminated by means other than ego, empty claims and hand-waving, then that POSSIBLE cause will always remain as an ambiguity.
I understand that perfectly well. And I never presented psychology as the ONLY possible reason. Only as A possible reason. Which until it can be safely ruled out, will always be A possible reason and you will never know what the REAL truth may be.
As Sherlock Holmes used to say, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth.
As long as psychology remains among the possibilities, then you haven't reached the truth.
se
fdegrove said:
Yup.
Great!
Let's start with a few questions.
Is the effect any more prominent when using interconnects versus speaker cables or vice versa?
Is it more prominent when two wires of a pair have the same direction, or when one pair of one channel is reversed compared to the other channel?
How does it manifest itself to you generally? Is it the "image shifting" that Eric notes or is it something else?
Basically I'm trying to get a fix on how the test cables should be constructed in order to achieve the most significant difference between cables. In other words, I want to have a "best case" cable with which to compare to a "worst case" cable.
se
Hmm, has anyone else read this? (see pic) Might be interesting or amusing, or enlightening, or whatever... It comes from one of Russ Andrews' guides, please remove (moderator) if it's a copyright breach, I'm not sure - I doubt old Russ would mind though).
You certainly aren't the only one to have noticed possible directionality in cables Eric!
(btw, I just changed the direction of my new speaker cable, but sadly I also cut it in half and bi-wired, re-stripped the ends and put contact enhancer on the connections, so it might be somewhat unreasonable to assume directionality made the difference, lol. I would have just reversed it, but it's too big a job with bananas at one end and Speakons at the other 🙁 )
-Simon
You certainly aren't the only one to have noticed possible directionality in cables Eric!
(btw, I just changed the direction of my new speaker cable, but sadly I also cut it in half and bi-wired, re-stripped the ends and put contact enhancer on the connections, so it might be somewhat unreasonable to assume directionality made the difference, lol. I would have just reversed it, but it's too big a job with bananas at one end and Speakons at the other 🙁 )
-Simon
Eric,
I do not in anyway mean to insult you and I am not in any
way looking down on you, but I now realize for sure that
reading a sentence and understanding a logical argument
correctly is not your cup of tea. You persist in thinking I have
claimed things I have not at all claimed and that I deny
things you claim, when I do not. I am sorry, but if you cannot
follow simple arguments it is pointless to continue the
discussion. I think I dare say that many others here do
understand perfectly clear what I have said.
I am sure you are a nice
guy and have many other virtues that make up for this problem,
most surely some of which I don't have. We're all individuals
you know.
Perhaps you actually do have golden, or even platinum ears?
I have not claimed you don't have that, even if you seem to
believe so.
Respectfully,
I do not in anyway mean to insult you and I am not in any
way looking down on you, but I now realize for sure that
reading a sentence and understanding a logical argument
correctly is not your cup of tea. You persist in thinking I have
claimed things I have not at all claimed and that I deny
things you claim, when I do not. I am sorry, but if you cannot
follow simple arguments it is pointless to continue the
discussion. I think I dare say that many others here do
understand perfectly clear what I have said.
I am sure you are a nice
guy and have many other virtues that make up for this problem,
most surely some of which I don't have. We're all individuals
you know.
Perhaps you actually do have golden, or even platinum ears?
I have not claimed you don't have that, even if you seem to
believe so.
Respectfully,
Ooh, I could just add a bit now...:
1- Have people who have tested used edgy, nasty, vocal music, and for only a short listen?
2- How good is your mains quality? (I think we can replace the word mains here with 'infrastructure' and 'hi-fi components')
-Simon
1- Have people who have tested used edgy, nasty, vocal music, and for only a short listen?
2- How good is your mains quality? (I think we can replace the word mains here with 'infrastructure' and 'hi-fi components')
-Simon
SimontY said:
It's groundbreaking.
The engineers at KIMBER KABLE are now able to measure directionality and quantify it using some new and expensive test equipment.
I've EMailed this information to the editors of Science, a couple of materials science journals as well as Lucent Technologies/Bell Labs. If true, its implications are very far-reaching and quite profound.
se
The Who???
Hi,
Hmmm...with a TT like that any system should rock.😉
It's Max Townsend BTW.
Steve,
I feel it's getting tricky when you use actual finished product for running the tests.
Some interconnects like my own are directional already by their geometry.
I use that telescopic shielding method you mentioned earlier, with a twist but that's irrelevant.
Speaker cables should be O.K. provided they're not shielded as the above IC as some are.
The way I do it at home is on a MC headamp or phono pre where I listen to a piece of wire soldered in after the couling cap.
Not very practical for most people won't have such high amplification stages at home, I suppose.
That leaves us with the speaker cables unless you have a brighter idea.
The best way IME to show the directionality is to have a set of speakercables where say the plus side is made in the opposite direction of the minus.
In that way quickly reversing the polarity at both speaker and amp side allows for easy testing.
I agree with Eric that if you reverse only one channel at the time it gives you an odd, shifted stereo image with one channel seemingly louder than the other.
The effect is similar to having one channel with the polarity reversed albeit not as pronounced.
Unfortunately I'm not equipped for it anymore but, if someone has a good soundcard or recorder and mic (member of the forum or manufacturer) then if a spectrum analysis of the recordings was made I'd be surpised to learn if nothing showed up.
Maybe that's what the folk at Ray Kimbers' do?
If so why don't they publicise it, I wonder??
I suggest we think this through for a while before we start testing...
Hope this helps,😉
Hi,
Hmmm...with a TT like that any system should rock.😉
It's Max Townsend BTW.
Steve,
I feel it's getting tricky when you use actual finished product for running the tests.
Some interconnects like my own are directional already by their geometry.
I use that telescopic shielding method you mentioned earlier, with a twist but that's irrelevant.
Speaker cables should be O.K. provided they're not shielded as the above IC as some are.
The way I do it at home is on a MC headamp or phono pre where I listen to a piece of wire soldered in after the couling cap.
Not very practical for most people won't have such high amplification stages at home, I suppose.
That leaves us with the speaker cables unless you have a brighter idea.
The best way IME to show the directionality is to have a set of speakercables where say the plus side is made in the opposite direction of the minus.
In that way quickly reversing the polarity at both speaker and amp side allows for easy testing.
I agree with Eric that if you reverse only one channel at the time it gives you an odd, shifted stereo image with one channel seemingly louder than the other.
The effect is similar to having one channel with the polarity reversed albeit not as pronounced.
Unfortunately I'm not equipped for it anymore but, if someone has a good soundcard or recorder and mic (member of the forum or manufacturer) then if a spectrum analysis of the recordings was made I'd be surpised to learn if nothing showed up.
Maybe that's what the folk at Ray Kimbers' do?
If so why don't they publicise it, I wonder??
I suggest we think this through for a while before we start testing...
Hope this helps,😉
Re: The Who???
I wonder too.
I would have thought that a manufacturer of directional cables would be only too willing to publicise procedures that prove their claims, especially ones as controversial as this.
It doesn't inspire confidence.
fdegrove said:
I wonder too.
I would have thought that a manufacturer of directional cables would be only too willing to publicise procedures that prove their claims, especially ones as controversial as this.
It doesn't inspire confidence.
Sarcasm?
Agh, who cares. I offered that difficult copy/paste procedure in the hopes that people would find it interesting, so don't take the **** please.
If you want to know how much of an uber-cable geek Ray Kimber really is, check out this streaming audio file:
http://www.audionexus.com/kkddfeature.shtml
He sounds like such an interesting guy!!!
-Simon
Hmm, here is their list of test equipment:
http://www.kimber.com/testequipment.htm
Not sure what they would gain in publishing anything though!
-Simon
http://www.kimber.com/testequipment.htm
Not sure what they would gain in publishing anything though!
-Simon
I particularly like the bit where Russ Andrews declares it would be EASY to get all internal equipment wire pointing in the right direction. I'll go and do it right away
Hi,
Surely it would add enormous credibility to their claims?
In my mind, all wire is directional to some extent...whether it messes up your audio is open to debate.
The better the resolution of the audio system the more it may be important to you to sort this out.
What intrigues me more is what is causing this. Let's face it may be new to some of us but it certainly isn't something new to me and a lot of other audio fellows.
It has been talked about for more than ten years but not a single person has come up with solid proof.
So far, I suspect it's the drawing die causing it but it's just a wild guess.
If for now we can just develop a means by which we can prove to ourselves it's actually audible we're one step in the right direction.
Later on we can poke the industry with our findings and see with what explanations they come up with.
Not at all.
Cheers,😉
Surely it would add enormous credibility to their claims?
In my mind, all wire is directional to some extent...whether it messes up your audio is open to debate.
The better the resolution of the audio system the more it may be important to you to sort this out.
What intrigues me more is what is causing this. Let's face it may be new to some of us but it certainly isn't something new to me and a lot of other audio fellows.
It has been talked about for more than ten years but not a single person has come up with solid proof.
So far, I suspect it's the drawing die causing it but it's just a wild guess.
If for now we can just develop a means by which we can prove to ourselves it's actually audible we're one step in the right direction.
Later on we can poke the industry with our findings and see with what explanations they come up with.
Not at all.
Cheers,😉
I accept that directional cables may exist, I don't have a problem with this. What I don't understand is why direcitionality is seen as good thing when dealing with AC signals.
Please, somone explain🙂
Please, somone explain🙂
Hi,
I certainly don't see it as a good thing per se...I do refer to directionality in a single piece of wire here.
ICs ans LS cables can be made directional but that's a different topic altogether and basically a design choice, one I can easily understand.
Cheers,😉
I certainly don't see it as a good thing per se...I do refer to directionality in a single piece of wire here.
ICs ans LS cables can be made directional but that's a different topic altogether and basically a design choice, one I can easily understand.
Cheers,😉
ok, this has got to be the most repetitive thread ever:
1.) there is no proof of cable dirictionality
2.) there were listening tests done, proving it.
3.) the tests are not valid because they weren't well conducted.
4.) photos in freezers (et al) is proof of psychological coloration.
5.) you keep bringing that up.
6.) crystal annealing is responsible for directionality
7.) i never said crystal annelaing is responsible for directionality.
8.) i've measured directionality in wire but can't conclusively prove it.
all of these topics are cycled.
here seems to be the arguments:
1.) people can hear directionality. ok, and the proof was a listening test. ok, but who knows for sure that the results weren't due to psychoacoustics?
2.) assuming that directionality is audible, it is caused by some known catch-phrase physical phenomenon that should be less likely to effect sound then almost anything imaginable. however this isn't proven and no attempts to prove it have been conclusive.
3.) some peoeple am not affected by psychoacoustics. this is because they listen to a lot of music and don't think it could possibly apply to them. others disagree.
this one catches me:
"I agree with Eric that if you reverse only one channel at the time it gives you an odd, shifted stereo image with one channel seemingly louder than the other."
-IMO this would be the ULTIMATE proof of directionality if done right. I mean if one channel is louder then the magnitude or the phase MUST be SIGNIFIGANTLY affected in so much as it would be EASILY measured. i mean i can see no way to make something louder then to add power or correct phase or both! How would you explain this effect?
1.) there is no proof of cable dirictionality
2.) there were listening tests done, proving it.
3.) the tests are not valid because they weren't well conducted.
4.) photos in freezers (et al) is proof of psychological coloration.
5.) you keep bringing that up.
6.) crystal annealing is responsible for directionality
7.) i never said crystal annelaing is responsible for directionality.
8.) i've measured directionality in wire but can't conclusively prove it.
all of these topics are cycled.
here seems to be the arguments:
1.) people can hear directionality. ok, and the proof was a listening test. ok, but who knows for sure that the results weren't due to psychoacoustics?
2.) assuming that directionality is audible, it is caused by some known catch-phrase physical phenomenon that should be less likely to effect sound then almost anything imaginable. however this isn't proven and no attempts to prove it have been conclusive.
3.) some peoeple am not affected by psychoacoustics. this is because they listen to a lot of music and don't think it could possibly apply to them. others disagree.
this one catches me:
"I agree with Eric that if you reverse only one channel at the time it gives you an odd, shifted stereo image with one channel seemingly louder than the other."
-IMO this would be the ULTIMATE proof of directionality if done right. I mean if one channel is louder then the magnitude or the phase MUST be SIGNIFIGANTLY affected in so much as it would be EASILY measured. i mean i can see no way to make something louder then to add power or correct phase or both! How would you explain this effect?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.