fleschler,
He was an electrical engineer for 30+ years. He used Pangea power cords on his equipment. The sound was not good. Bass frequencies were a mess. The reproduction of the frequency range was very ragged with some frequencies standing out and some recessed. Hearing a bass played on his system was awful.
I lent him an Empress ($300) 7 year old GroverHuffman power cable for his amp. He was blown away. The bass started to sound coherent. He still had this spacey sound, undefined highs.
As I wrote: Most electronic engineers - the ones who are not trying to sell you those products - will explain that. And the few who DO believe inevitably have only anecdotes for the claim.
It is zero surprise that you’ve just provided another anecdote...no supporting evidence.
Please keep in mind that just "being an engineer" doesn’t guard anyone against the influences of sighted bias. Just as "being a scientist" doesn’t stop any scientist from experiencing bias effects. That’s why it’s the METHOD that is important and reliable, not "the person." Every scientist who makes a claim has to provide objective evidence that can be vetted. "Take my word for it, I'm a scientist" won’t do.
It’s the same in audio. An engineer who is using an unreliable method like sighted listening is JUST as fallible as anyone else and can hear things that aren’t there.
Sorry...that’s just how humans work.
This is not a claim that ’therefore you and he were not hearing any difference.’ It is merely pointing out that just believing it, and claiming it, doesn’t advance the conversation at all.
You say that there were very clear changes in frequency response, both highs and bass. What you are describing is easily measurable. Did your engineer friend measure these differences in the musical signal? If so, that would be truly novel data. But the fact no such data has been presented...ever!...as far as I’m aware, is a Big Red Flag in terms of the substance of such claims.