702, it sounds like you have played with as many power supplies as me. And yet unlike you I don't find exotic PCs silly. I did find them silly before I tried them though - which I guess is the difference between you and me. You illustrate this point even further when you comment about "exceptional quality systems that ... couldn't possibly be improved by adding any [PCs]." How can you know that if you didn't even try.
You see I think your mind misunderstands useful theory as completely explaining natural phenomena, and you simply deduce everything from that theory. This is not scientific at all, it is pompous and short-sighted. (I don't mean to be insulting because I am guilty of being pompous and short-sighted about things I am highly educated in - usually the ones I am most educated in).
Where I do agree with you is concerning the ludicrous claims of the marketers who are paid to sell audiophiles on manufacturers' product. Anyone that has a business with shareholders is obliged to do this. You tell them what is legal, but otherwise anything that will sell the product. Some of the advertisements and "piffle" on web sites is a hoot. But there is only one difference between the audiophiles that fall for it and yourself - the fact you are better educated in electronics theory. Otherwise they are just like you and deduce from a scientific theory whether something will be beneficial or not. You and they fall into the trap of believing in the completeness of a theory.
For example, there might hypothetically be unequivocal evidence to your satisfaction that a shielded interconnect cable will sound better than an identical unshielded cable. And so as the hypothetical pioneer of shielded interconnect cables I might write some convincing rubbish for the masses that gets them into a lather that they just have to have my cables. Both you and the ignorant masses would be wrong to conclude that my cable was better than all other cables, provided there was some other parameter that affected the performance of a cable. Hypothetically my cables might use steel conductors and a competitors' might use copper. The dilemna that you do not address is how do you decide whether the shielded steel cable will outperform the unshielded copper cable. The answer seems simple to me - you listen to them. For you it appears to me that you would prefer to see what a 'scope tells you than by listening. But how can the scope identify which form of distortion is most likely to reduce the listener's enjoyment?
Of course the example includes two issues (shielding and conductivity) that you probably accept as influential on the sound, and a dilemma that can be resolved - ie. get a shielded copper cable. But it is not always that simple. And where we have the problem incessantly in these argumentative posts, is where experienced audiophiles hear a difference, and you deny that report because of your pompous and short-sighted belief that you know everything that there is to know about reproducing music electronically. Frankly 702, that is just as much a "hoot" as some of the claims of the copywriters working for the cable manufacturers.
You see I think your mind misunderstands useful theory as completely explaining natural phenomena, and you simply deduce everything from that theory. This is not scientific at all, it is pompous and short-sighted. (I don't mean to be insulting because I am guilty of being pompous and short-sighted about things I am highly educated in - usually the ones I am most educated in).
Where I do agree with you is concerning the ludicrous claims of the marketers who are paid to sell audiophiles on manufacturers' product. Anyone that has a business with shareholders is obliged to do this. You tell them what is legal, but otherwise anything that will sell the product. Some of the advertisements and "piffle" on web sites is a hoot. But there is only one difference between the audiophiles that fall for it and yourself - the fact you are better educated in electronics theory. Otherwise they are just like you and deduce from a scientific theory whether something will be beneficial or not. You and they fall into the trap of believing in the completeness of a theory.
For example, there might hypothetically be unequivocal evidence to your satisfaction that a shielded interconnect cable will sound better than an identical unshielded cable. And so as the hypothetical pioneer of shielded interconnect cables I might write some convincing rubbish for the masses that gets them into a lather that they just have to have my cables. Both you and the ignorant masses would be wrong to conclude that my cable was better than all other cables, provided there was some other parameter that affected the performance of a cable. Hypothetically my cables might use steel conductors and a competitors' might use copper. The dilemna that you do not address is how do you decide whether the shielded steel cable will outperform the unshielded copper cable. The answer seems simple to me - you listen to them. For you it appears to me that you would prefer to see what a 'scope tells you than by listening. But how can the scope identify which form of distortion is most likely to reduce the listener's enjoyment?
Of course the example includes two issues (shielding and conductivity) that you probably accept as influential on the sound, and a dilemma that can be resolved - ie. get a shielded copper cable. But it is not always that simple. And where we have the problem incessantly in these argumentative posts, is where experienced audiophiles hear a difference, and you deny that report because of your pompous and short-sighted belief that you know everything that there is to know about reproducing music electronically. Frankly 702, that is just as much a "hoot" as some of the claims of the copywriters working for the cable manufacturers.