Harley quote


Regarding two aftermarket power cables: "These differences in the shapes of the musical waveforms are far too small to see or measure with even the most sophisticated technology, yet we as listeners not only routinely discriminate such differences, we sometimes find musical meaning in these differences."

 Nonsense. Just because people claim to "routinely discriminate" differences doesn't mean it's true or they're right. Apparently many have witnessed UFOs but that doesn't mean they actually saw extraterrestrial visitors, does it? Some have seen/heard a deity speaking to them "routinely"; does that imply that they are surely communing with an unseen/unmeasurable spiritual force(s)? Can we not put a little more effort into confirmatory reality-testing first when "the most sophisticated technology" can find nothing in 2020? (Of course, speaker cables can measure differently as per here, here, even if not necessarily audible in many cases by the time we connect amp to speaker.)

ARCHIMAGO
Previewfuzztone
The argument for a "full loom" is that they "work together" or "work together better" than unmatched cables.  Given that digital cables, ICs, SCs, and PCs are all performing different tasks, and the components they are hooked up to may come from different companies, with different impedances, and also performing different functions, please explain with detailed, specific arguments from electronic engineering why a full loom is ipso facto better.

Every cable vendor blathers on and on about how their cables improve signal conduction. If that is true, then they don't need to work together as a loom. It is almost like they are not being completely truthful.
It is absolutely unquestionable beyond any shadow of a doubt that digital, especially anything approaching high res can far far more accurately reproduce an ANALOG waveform than can a vinyl playback system or reel-to-reel. And let’s be honest, that is all they are doing, recreating an analog waveform. No more, no less. All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform.
The problem here is NOT about the reproduction of a waveform coming from microphones...Nyquist theorem is a THEOREM first about Fourier translation not about human perception first... Matter closed...

The problem is that TIMBRE is also a mathematical modelling concept in acoustic and this modelling concept is there for an acoustician which try to understand a very complex concrete event JUDGED and evaluated by the human ears/brain and pertaining to the way a complex materials (a stradivarius) reproduce a musical tone in a specific acoustical dimension... The musical event consist in the fact that the note is not only a pitch accuracy but a more complex phenomenon, the sound of a stradivarius making his note is not the sound of a cheap violin producinfg the same note.... In the case of a stradivarius producing a note in a church, versus a cheap violin....

Then because no live musical event can be reproduced WITHOUT some lost of information, the fact that high resolution digital could reproduce to the perfection the analog waveform of any microphones, this fact cannot erase the fact that the microphones cannot register TOTALLY the concrete timbre event, for the very reason by which each microphones type has his own’s limitations and by reason of their specific locations.... All these choices, i will recall also mixing choices , alter the ORIGINAL timbre experience of the musical living event...

Take the Nyquist theorem, put it on a shelve for a second and think about reality :Timbre.....

Acoustic is the study of what human ears experience....Then timbre is NOT a "flowery word" save for someone ignoring acoustic....It is not only a brain/ears specific experience but a very mathematically complex concept for which science use not only Fourier analysis but many other complex tools...

I apologize to answering a post way above after dinosaurs, floods and cables discussion....
I will give 10:1 odds that people who use the same words, over and over in their posts, like fourier transform, or nyquist, have probably no real practical work where they have had to use fourier transforms or given serious consideration to how their system will be impacted by nyquist limits and subharmonic modulation. When your only tool is a hammer, you keep pulling it out of the bag. Problem is, someone only told them it was a hammer. It was really a wrench.
douglas_schroeder,

"Of course, glupson, you will default to the most extreme, invalid comparisons, completely ignoring the context. What else would be expected of you? Pathetic."

It is a bit strange that a person who brought Biblical stories about the great flood into the thread about aftermarket power cords is complaining about me going to extremes and ignoring the context. Are you practicing for a sit-down comedy show?