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
Audio Advisor has already solved this one.

PANGEA.

Runner-up to Isoacoustics with Gaia.
All these flowery words about the ear, human perception, etc. is meaningless. All these devices do is recreate an analog waveform.

It is you that confuse the microphone waveform translated digitally with the initial waveform perceived by the human ears which is not a set of microphone...


Unable to answer any meaningful objection to my affirmation that timbre is a complex phenomenon for the human ears NEVER integrally and perfectly seized by a microphone, you attack ad hominem:

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.

It is you in the first place that invoked Nyquist theorem to ridicule supposedly ignorant turntable audiophiles...Ignoring yourself elementary fact about timbre perception...More than that, you even mock a mathematician woman who at the end of an article in scientific american dont decrete the same truth than you about digital and analog, and conclude in a neutral way, accusing her to not understand Nyquist theorem.... Remember?


The initial timbre live event is always imperfectly recorded and after that perfectly translated, yes by virtue of Nyquist theorem, from analog microphones to digital, mixed, and retranslated to analog and or digital, and RECREATED in the listener room...

There is 2 important moment for timbre perception: the initial event and the listeners acoustical rooms...Nyquist theorem has nothing to do directly with timbre perception...

Then turntable people has all right to say that they prefer timbre experience from a turntable with their specific room/system/ears without being accused of ignorance or delusion....

In a word, 2 ears are not equal to 2 microphones, even if the waveform is perfectly translated by Nyquist theorem to digital........

Ears need a room to perceive natural timbre, be it a normal room with speakers or or an headphone room...
Because timbre is NOT the abstract accuracy of a note pitch only but also something linked to the complex material properties of a specific  instrument evaluated in a room....



Scientism is not science....




The principles and oil field data is global, and the book emphasizes that the same stratification that is seen in the more thoroughly presented continents is consistent throughout the world. The detailed analysis of the deposition layers is specific to North America, South America and Africa. The same data could be presented about whichever continent one wishes, but in order to make the case, these three were analyzed in painstaking detail.

One might think that at some point the floundering attempts to discredit would peter out, and the conversation return to the topic of cables. 
My perspective on cables begins with the hard won recognition (Read putting thousands of dollars into cables temporarily, comparison of sets, reviews of sets of cables, and constant system building with those sets.) that cable manufacturers indeed know quite a bit about signal and power transmission. From that stems the suggestion that it may be beneficial if audiophiles would humble themselves to take the cable makers' suggestion to use an entire set. 

What is accomplished of value in terms of assessing with intent to drive a system toward a desired sound by mixing cables? Nothing. No baseline, no means of assessment of what any particular cable is doing. It's pretending to act like you know what you're doing. Then, consider the irony that the cable mixer rails against the manufacturers as though they don't know what they are doing! This is the epitome of hubris. 

My point is simply that, quite apart from ABX, which I have done and successfully selected the proper cables with far greater than 50% accuracy, as outlined in my review of the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator), if one wishes to lay to rest the issue of perception of cable changes, swapping out one or two is not the ideal. Comparison of sets is the ideal, which imo most do not pursue due to the cost and work involved. That's understandable, but it's not supportable to suggest that mixing cables is advantageous. 

One could, theoretically compare two discrete sets of mixed cables, and that might ( I would suspect with less certainty) reveal significant enough differences between the two mixed sets to convince in regards to efficacy of cables. But, that is of little advantage to the audiophile, who would gain no understanding of the contribution of any of the cables. The far more sensible option would be to compare entire sets, from which a baseline sound is found, then other cables can be swapped in purposefully. I have done this with many sets of cables to the degree that I know the innate sonic character of particular sets of cables, and can select from particular cables to tune systems. How is that supposed to be done with mixed cables, when you have no understanding of the sound of the cables? 

Much of what I see happening in this hobby is considered proper form, but I see it as thoughtless consumerism. How else do you explain someone buying a cable in isolation from the set and thinking they  have any idea of what it will do? 

In order to properly assess cables and properly present them as having audible changes regardless of what measurements show, I would seek the maximum impact, not the minimum. Imo, that begins with putting some trust in at least a handful of cable makers who you regard as legit, design savvy, etc., then working with a full set to gain a baseline that is not fluid, and finally rotating out sets to hear fundamental differences. 

This has been my MO for reviewing as well, but with the addition that I build many systems in assessment, as opposed to few systems. 

I believe that were these principles to be followed, the debate could be resolved with more finality than the machinations that happen incessantly. 
Finding the right cord or cords for each piece of gear can make a bigger difference somtime than buying or upgrading it can be a much easier and less expensive route to take especially with a good dealer involved.