Oh my gosh… Really, just how bad can an ‘explanatory’ article be?
Quite literally crying here… . I can live with a couple of ‘alternative views’ of reality. But there’s one in almost every two sentences, here… .
I’m fine with people hearing improvements with cables. I’m even happy for them, and sometimes I wish I could experience the same. Seriously.
But why does that need to be ‘proved’, with exotic explanations that should have been much easier and shorter(*) , and on top of that : don’t even actually explain anything?
(*) = : ‘cables have non-resistive impedance components’ almost fully describes this article)
In practical applications: the problem presented here, is a phase error of +/- 5 degrees @ 20kHz. With their own example cable (presumably a very bad one), and considering worst case and very long >>2meter lenghts.
Even if you think this is a problem (it is insanely small, really) : go figure. How small do you think the error will be when the wire is a more realistic 10x shorter, and of good quality ?
Did you notice btw, that the very first non-introductory sentence is already disproving everything that’s following? (hint : a non-distorted square wave is the perfect proof, for both a perfect amplitude/frequency response, and perfect time coherence…)
I will agree : I liked reading the magazine; nice style. But this specific article : brr… Just enjoy your improvement, please. Don’t seek for far-fetched non-explanations. (Directed to the author, not the topicstarter).