*WHITE PAPER* The Sound of Music - How & Why the Speaker Cable Matters

I would respond to what you wrote @teoaudio, but what would be the point.

How does one respond to talking point that are virtually all made up, or at least gross distortions of factual points? I mean really where would I start.  You sound "knowledgeable" but many people read a lot and spew what they read without really understanding it, which is pretty much what you have done.

You show a clear lack of understanding of the auditory system or of the general concept of "signals", so where do even begin to pick apart the  nonsense that you wrote, and there was an awful lot of it.

I will just address this:

We derive 100% of our hearing function from the tiny area of the positive leading edge of all transient structure in the signal. this means the cables in question, or the digital system in question, has to sample out to about ..oh..2mhz, with about 24 bits of accuracy, with a jitter performance of zero picoseconds of error at 1 picosecond compared to the next picosecond or any other picosecond referenced to any other.. within a 1-2-5-10 second window. 

Embodied in this is a total lack of understanding of our ears, our auditory system, our brain, sounds, audio, digital processing, and pretty much everything that could be known about audio ... and you did it all in one paragraph. That is some skill!!!

Do you even realize how silly you sound???   1 picosecond. Sure bud.  That is 0.3mm at the speed of light. Sound travels 0.0000003mm in a picosecond.


And no, we don't derive 100% of our hearing function from the leading edge of a transient. There are many aspects to hearing. Binaural time of arrival appears to be a form of convolution across many receptors of frequency for a maximum accuracy of about 5usec.  Some aspects of height are based on relative frequencies comparisons.  We don't even fully detect frequencies until we have experienced a full waveform, and many aspects of "hearing" require significant passages.

Hate to break it to you, but digital audio has timing accuracy in the 100's of picoseconds, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but that is orders of magnitude better than any analog system.

It’s an interesting theory of which there is little proof:

But it does illustrate how good the ear is, based on how it functions. Of course, each brain and each ear is different, so we get into these arguments about who can hear what. A situation where hearing is as varied as intelligence is. Lacking ears vs capable ears, or however one wants to put it. A sliding scale not unlike an IQ chart.

It has been shown that younger ears have better timing discrimination and it is pretty consistent. It has been shown that trained ears, and younger trained ears even better, are best at picking out anomalies.

Show me where "audiophiles" are any better than anyone else at picking out anomalies? I can show you something where they could not even pick out huge distortion, but it was readily evident to engineers with proper listening test.

Many musicians do possess better ability to identify tones accurately, but that does not give them super human hearing.

Hate to break it to you, but digital audio has timing accuracy in the 100’s of picoseconds, sometimes better, sometimes worse, but that is orders of magnitude better than any analog system.

I’m sure it does. Nothing exists in isolation.

Figure it out.

Too much linear blinkering in thoughts and their given associated subjects will kill analysis dead like a one legged proclamation trying to get up and walk.

Your math and associated recall and analysis is ok, I expect. But math is not complex logic function as tied to analysis of complex subjects. Big difference.

I’ve got my name out there on a shingle. same as the thread starter.

what’s your problem?

You want to pick on people, at this level - show your face.

In order to do such things, they should be of linear gain, not non linear gain, like all known transistors are. Other than triodes, SIT transistors and V-FET transistors, which are all linear gain. Long electronic story there, for sure... Those are the only three devices know to be even capable of getting close to this requirement.

See this just shows more fundamental lack of understanding. These devices are not "magic". The linearity of a SIT transistor is due to inherent feedback within the device structure.  15 seconds of research would reveal this:

The I-V characteristics follow an exponential behavior in the low-current region and change to approximately a linear-or square-law relation in the high-current region where the negative feedback effect of the series channel resistance becomes pronounced. 

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1479561

Ditto for triodes. Triodes are linear because of internal feedback.

What can we conclude from this?:  Beware people speaking with authority about things they do not full understand.

You are still getting it wrong for all the wrong reasons and attacking people who have commercial interests here, when you probably also have commercial interests.

SHOW YOUR FACE.