Well said hwz1970. A very long way of saying “who knows”
From another data point, who also happens to be a clever and respected chap, Bruno Putzeys:
“Textbook theory” is very often just a shortcut. When people say something like “In theory, it should happen like this . . . ,” what they actually mean to say is, “In the very first approximation, on a basic level, this is how it should go.” That’s oversimplification, not theory. Real theory isn’t so simple. It is like you say: in theory, cables shouldn’t make any difference. Well, hang on. Does that imply that you’ve actually looked at all of the established textbook physics that explains exactly what happens within a cable? I don’t mean “new physics,” like microdiodes or what have you, because I do think that’s a load of crock – but, really, all the things you know happen when you, for instance, intersperse two conductors with a dielectric between them. How will that behave, for instance, when you actually put it up in a listening room and subject it to the vibrations that are caused by the speakers – the triboelectric effect? Or just ordinary electromagnetic noise pickup from nearby mains cables? All these things are entirely known by physics and fully understood by theory. But the people who say that “in theory” it shouldn’t matter, they just look at one small corner in one particular textbook, where it doesn’t mention all these other things. Usually, where theory and practice deviate, it just means that your theory hasn’t gotten into enough theoretical detail. So far, I have not yet bumped into anything in terms of audible differences that I, or anyone with me, could hear that did not at some point connect with established theory and known physics – by which I mean ordinary street-level physics, none of your fancy quantum stuff. You really do not need to invent laws of physics from a parallel universe to explain things. And you don’t have to excuse yourself to say that theory does not connect with practice. If you look close enough, you will find [the connection]. If practice and theory seem to deviate, you better have a sharp look at your theory.
This is why I really enjoying reading about John Swenson’s research (and others) and then discussing it with DAC designers and other experts to hear what they think. I encourage others to do the same - talk to experts and ask questions. Some experts agree, some don’t but then we get into a friendly discussion that explains their perspective, what they think is happening.
Specific to this topic, John’s research on leakage currents and associated RF interferences getting into the DAC… and how leakage currents may affect RF pickup (and radiation) in cables and maybe (or not) this is why some cables ‘sound different’… i.e. maybe (or not) you’re hearing the effects of RF pickup getting into the DAC? So maybe (or not) if you block leakage currents going through these digital cables (and into the DAC), maybe you reduce the potential for digital cables ‘sounding different’?
Maybe? Who knows
One thing I do know with absolute certainty, you and I are definitely enjoying the music, going by our contributions to the ‘now playing’ music thread