A Couple Little Things I'm Wondering About

  Science?     We don't need no stinking science!          Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion......(ad nauseam)             

Experimentation is (and always has been) the basis of scientific discovery.      It works in your listening room, as well (whatever the topic).       KUDOS, to those so disposed!

Anything on which your cables rest can add it’s constants to their dielectrics.    That changes the permittivity and permeability.      If you’ve spent money in an attempt at bettering your reproduction, on good cables; you’ve detuned them (ie: resting on wool, synthetic fibers, etc).       The Naysayer Doctrine preachers may scoff, because of their 1800’s belief system, but- 20th Century science says that the electromagnetic current/signal travels outside the conductor ("waveguide") and through the dielectric.     Even wiki-scientists are aware:        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity#:~:text=Speed%20of%20electromagnetic%20waves%20in....                                                Just one possibility, regarding cable lifters.

Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That old Time Religion...... (ad nauseam)      They’re still trying to evangelically compel those electrons ("charge carriers"), through a conductor (HALLELUJAH!).        Anyone interested in today’s science, can read the, ’Electric Drift’ section, of the aforementioned wiki-science article.               Particularly, the last sentence (since we’re talking AC).        Note that these things are measurable, established and documented.        When one of these faith-in-outdated-science, religious fanatics can prove (via any 20th Century Science/Physics) that the above factors have no bearing on what we’re hearing, I’ll accept their version of salvation.      Is there a purgatory, for repentant doubters, in the Naysayer Doctrine?

With AC; electrons don't drift at all.     They oscillate over a distance of a few micrometers (.0000001 Meter = micrometer), without movement along the conductor.        

"What is this obsession with technical explanations?"       Perhaps: because the OP ASKED, "And if you know do they make sense from a PURELY TECHNICAL standpoint?"         The views, discoveries and measurement methods of modern (20th Century and on) Science/Physics, regarding electricity/electromagnetism, offer explanations for what our senses can perceive.       This thread’s OP expressed a desire for such.      

The religiously obtuse can't differentiate; how DC and AC currents each affect electrons and Electrical Drift, in a conductor.      Apparently, repeating the same erroneous, classical doctrine, is somehow comforting.   "Trust me, brother, AMEN!"         No surprise!       

The Naysayer Doctrine (like every other faith-based, religious cult) has as many dopes as it does Popes.         Bring up anything resembling SCIENCE/PHYSICS, dated later than the 1800’s and they become apoplectic, not having the formal education to comprehend the concepts, or- possible ramifications.       It would be hilarious, were it not so pathetic!          Gimme That Old Time Religion, Gimme That Old Time Religion, etc.

YES; I most definitely made that statement (regarding FFT).  Had you read the reference material posted with that statement (or- understood the acronym), you might have comprehended the message.     Then again, probably not, or you wouldn't have even challenged the statement.      I repeat:  "When one of these faith-in-outdated-science, religious fanatics can prove (via any 20th Century Science/Physics) that the above factors have no bearing on what we’re hearing, I’ll accept their version of salvation."         All I've ever done, in this thread or any other, is to put forth propositions, based on Electrical/Electromagnetic Theory (later than the 1800's), as to why certain things might actually make an audible difference, in someone's listening room.       All your cult ever does, is to dissuade people from experimenting, in their own rooms, with their own systems and ears.       btw: I've never mentioned anything to do with RCA caps (like I said: apoplectic).

@dannad-      Clearly, you don’t understand the function/choice/application of, "time windows", as regards separating impulse responses, reflections, freqs, times, etc, when using FFT algorithms.    But then, no surprise!     I don’t expect anyone of your ilk (Naysayer Doctrine adherents) to comprehend, assimilate or discover anything, that reflects a modern view of this universe, or-disagrees with your rhetoric.     I never said the thread wasn’t about RCA caps, nor- did I dispute your proposed experiment.      ONLY, that I never addressed the subject.      Again: apoplectic, much?     As for my tone; if it reflects anything but distain for those of your ilk, OOPS!

"I would not be posting the following (repeatedly) unless I had a solid grounding in the sciences, at least in audio since this is an audio forum."       I wouldn't either!  

@dannad- No problem, although; I’ve never used REW.      My Tact RCS 2.2X has a program that sends a very short, very strong initial FFT pulse (pop), to each of my main and subwoofer amps.      Any possible room reflections would take longer to reach the mic, than the direct, initial impulse, from speakers to mic.      The program’s time window is short enough to ignore anything arriving at the mic, after that short, initial pulse.      Once the algorithm has the data regarding arrival time differences, between each main and sub (L + R), it delays the the main, to bring it into phase with it’s respective sub, as well as adjusting the sub’s SPL to match (in my case).      Been my favorite function of the unit.      It frees me from having to time-align the acoustic centers of my subs’ drivers, with those of the mains, like back in the old days (over 20 years ago).      Of course; the closer the subs are to an alignment with the mains, the less correction the TacT has to do.      I’ve used programs/equipment in professional settings(ie: the DBX DriveRack), when bi or tri-amping, that perform the same function.      Nothing new!      After that; achieving a flat room response, using the typical auto-curve, is cake.

I was wondering what direction your next change of topic would take.      The twists and turns are usually endless (circular thinking).     Those of your ilk are great at semantic gymnastics.      The term, "PULSE", in regards to FFT transfers, is now your problem?      (https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a369180.pdf)      and: (https://dsp.stackexchange.com/questions/62176/difference-between-fourier-transform-and-fft-of-rectan... )                   "Convolution function" is the perfect description, for your cult’s program!      Nothing what-so-ever, to do with this thread and- no surprises!     So tedious!

I explained how my TacT’s program uses FFT to time/phase align my system, as simply as possible, and I’m trying, "...to look like an expert..."?      Hilarious!      Semantic Gymnastics is NOT a science, but- obviously all you’ve got.    Nothing you've injected here has anything to do with the OP's queries.       What you’ve proven: you’re a waste of keystrokes.      The ubiquitous last word is yours, with my compliments.      You obviously can’t refrain.