1st of all, I think there are many misunderstandings and disinformations about me, sciences, others and also about this forums.
Due to time constraint reason, I would only address few of them in this post and let it be (ignore the rest). I would also had the decency to split them into two parts to not wasting other's time.
For disclaimer, I don't usually do something like this (step by step explaining my hypothesis). Because 1st of all I'm by no mean expert in physic, chemistry or biology (just a decade old and had many decades ahead of me). 2ndly all of the informations kinda very basic in their respectively field, self explanary and also all available online. Thirdly it's still due to time constraint.
That being said, let's begin the nerd part:
In this post i will still use the usual "Snake-oil/Voodoo" tinned-copper vintage sound IC cable as example.
To understand a cable, you need to understand it's construct. That being said, due to time constraint I'll just skip most of them (strands count, strands size, resistance, impedance, capacitance, inductance, dielectric, outer diameter, shielding, single core, dual core vs quad core etc) and just jump to the most important part (How current signal flow in a cable, quantam chemistry 101). It's important to note that not because the others are unimportant, but again, time constraint and probably "too much informations".
A conducter material in chemistry is usually a composition of unbalance atoms (neutron, proton and usually extra electron in metal conductor) in solid state ( actually in various density, even liquid state). The signal that flow through it is a composition of a eletric field (potential or voltage energy level) and movement/collision of small own eletromagnatic field of electrons (Current/Signal energy).
While not much data on velocity of the potential electric field that generally assumed at light speed/instantenous (mean I'm lazy to look for the formula), it's not important because usually we just need to know if it's AC/DC and what's the energy intensity level. The velocity of electron, on the other hand is much important because in simpler term (driff velocity multiply with density of electrons) or ( Driff velocity divided by distance between electron) is the speed of the signal ( [Assuming the voltage potential energy are uniform in whole cable length], [temperature and electron density is constant and uniform], [potential electromacnetic field velocity and the reaction time with the electron is instantaneous/negligible] and [electron always travel in shortest straight line regardless of frequency] etc).
Of course in real life we know it's never a possibility and also completely against physic. Cause voltage will always drop over distance, density of electron will change over temperature, oxidization, impurity, strands size and surface area etc will never be in perfect form and most probably will change the travel/collision path of electron significantly, there will be some randomized movement of electron to dissipate the potential energy as heat etc.
But we all know what a math formula will looked like if we include every variables in this world into the formula, so just as they split science in three seperated subject, usually they simplify the formula in an approximation with proper assumption, sometime too much so that so many will get the wrong idea and eventually it became a disinformation.
The above simplified explanation describing principles of DC electricity current, in AC it's way more complicate as electron actually had mass and it do had specific transient response when changing polarity (both voltage and current). Also in changing of intensity level of voltage and current there will be variable E and H induced, hence power loss, reactance element, phase shiting, delayed, skin effects and etc in cable (explain in later). I won't explaining AC in quantum physic/chemical/mechanic, cause while we'd known many constant in that equation, many are just hypothesis. Not very different in most results of biology understanding but that's not important.
Take the tinned-copper conductor cable as an example (not to be confused with brass), tin conductivity are just 15% of copper. Just by using simple common sense, we'd understand "cable can and do make differences sonically", especially in audio industry where analog signal involves. But how actually/where it makes a different?
Before I dwell in what's the actually change that I'm pretty sure it can be heard by most humans' ear. I had to properly dispelling some pretty idiotic disinformation cause it's not only related, but it's my actual field's core knowledge (signal processing),so I think I had some obligations in it.
Namely "The most quoted video on ASR". In simpler term, it's completely bullshit, and utterly ridiculous.
1st of all, the source signal is perfectly generated by a mathematical formula and not a real life sound. If we know the formula we can use the same formula to "Predicting" it back to perfection with even 44.1khz frequency of sampled date (And even without the sampled data, actually). I actually donno who designed this ridiculous experiment and what they want to prove, it's not only meaningless and un-useful, but also intentionally wasting other's time and spreading disinformation about the important-ness of sampling frequency. It's akin to using a generated 480p picture to prove his "state of the art" 480p gaming monitor screen, which ofcourse had completely zero and distortion free~ (If only it's so easy to represent all the real life visual characteristic)
2ndly, the reason we use rectangular sampling impulse to sample the data (hence the jagged sine wave) for every sampling rate is also very simple. Because in real life it's pretty hard to generate infinity sine waves to represent another wave (think about the enourmous data for 1 song), so we cut cost and use an impulse to sampling instead. But as we all know, electron actually had mass (duh~). So a single instantaneous pulse in theoritically often is a rectangular pulse in real life that generated by transitioning threshold trigger (with generally mili to nano second transitioning duration depending on the limitation of conductor/crystal clock rate, much like digital signal). For example, a 1 Mhz clockrate pulse generator will had roughly 1 micro second transitioning duration (aka, physical trancient response. It's also actually why we use rms value instead of peak value but that's not important in this topic). Also, the lower the sampling rate and bit depth, the more "Square" of those line-like rectangle, so more jagged.
3. After the jagged sampled data (it actually exist and never a myth to begin with) that usually in digital form passed to DAC, we entered "reconstructing signal" stage. There are various difficulty/technology limitation in predicting algorithm to reconstructing real life sound (actually in every audio chain component and not only reconstructing stage to be fair, but that's not important), even with his "state of the arts" and "last of the good" analog sine wave generator (which probably the only useful information in that video that actually draw my attention). To simplify this topic, we just focusing on the real challenge of lower sampling data rate, aka loss of transient data of an audio wave. But since I think non engineer probably can't understand or clearly define what is transient response and transient data, I'm gonna use another word to simplify and describe it, namely "tone" (I don't think this is better word, but usually I try different approach, even it's way more inefficient IMO).
4. In simpler term, contrary to what the guy in the video think, sound wave isn't exactly a generated sinewave (that had fixed and known transient data). Given a constant frequency and amplitute of data, the possibilities of it's transient data actually are infinity in reconstrution (hence Fourier Therom). For example we know a wave is 20khz and amplitude is 2V, but it can be triangle, sinewave, rectacgular etc in possibilities (although in real life soundwave cannot be rectangular aka DC and it will damage your speaker). This is what we called transient data (in physic) and loosely "tone" (in acoustic term). The analog signal (particular in audio industry) are very sensitive to "tone" distortion, aka "High Fidelity".
5. So in conclusion, every different DAC chipset implementation actually had it own signature "tone", from my experience even more so than cable and amp (except maybe tube amp) and it does matter (I like good implementation of wolfson and ESS for different genre). Also 192khz is the minimum "High Fidelity" sound for my personal taste, too much and it losing it's chipset sound signature, too little and it's too generated. But sampling rate is really just 1 single aspect, it usually just indicate how accurate/prowness of computation and clockrate. As I'm aware there are many other "micro second's different improvement" in phase and tonality which are totally understandable and audible, contradicting some biology experiment claim that human can only hear around 0.5 miliseconds delay (because bio is not as easy).
Actually, I think I changed my mind for the tinned copper example after such lengthy and unnecessarily explanation. It's elementary, self explanatory, at least few decades old, too many information available and also pretty cheap to just test it yourself anyway if you know what you're doing (If you're not, refer to part B 1st question, IMO not worthy of another lengthy, nerdy and unnecessarily explanation). I'll just simplified it as such, every cable/conductor can alter any signal pass through it in many ways that you can hear but you didn't know why , cause physics. (Get it? Refer to part B 1st question)
I don't want it to make this overly complicated and longer than it should, so I'll just shamelessly pluck and quote the "EFF-IX audio engineer" simplified conclusion. "It had a profound dynamic and clearly audible influences because an audio signal is in principle nothing but an infinite number of frequencies and an infinite number of levels". (For disclaimer I do think the actual fourier's transform and laplace transform are much more beautifully represent. But this world invented art students, so.)
That being said, I do have my suspect in some marketing snake oil and propaganda, but usually over some newer and not those decades old "myth". Like the new "audiophile" digital cable, advantages of DSD, bluetooth can surpass wired sound quality, close back headphone can be as good as open back, sustainability of green energy, climate change, gender confusion, beneficial of communism's propaganda and etc.
But at least I'll stayed open minded and had the decency to not accusing and insulting other without substantial factual content and banning someone for sharing his knowledges in an audio "science" "forum". Well anyway, for that aspect I just want to say no offence taken. Cause in current society's corruption, toxic communities, ignorant, confusion, disrespect to sciences/facts, self-centered pretensious, self destructive behaviour, vanity or just plain mentally fragility level, never ceased to amuse me.
For disclaimer, it doesn't mean I think we cannot distinguish an intellectual person from the rest. I do think it actually doesn't take a Sherlock to noticing other's intellectual property, sincerity, principility, disciplin and sense of humours. It would be like comparing shit to apple, elementary student to University level, bicycle to rocket, or plain 44.1khz to 192khz sampling rate (Get it?). But in a world of gold fish, that probably won't stop majority from imagine/dreaming facts themself.
Part:B About the misunderstandings and disinformations about me, sciences, other members and also about this forums
My hypothesis on why people think it's snake-oil.
At this point, if you're an nerdy audiophile that good in science, you probably can already deduct what's the real life representation of the so called "vintage cable signature sound" just by reading Part A hypothesis. So why the snake-oil claim and disbeliever still exist if it's this simple? It's actually very simple, yet can talk days about it, with countless examples. I would say those knowledges even far exceed science, extended also in research blindspot, deduction skills, human weaknesses such as tunnel vision, corruption and etc. But for time constraint reason let just conclude it had more variables in real life and overly simplified things.
To put it in simpler term, it's just one conductor in the whole system chain with their own conductors. For example, sony's wm1z dap had gold conductor(warmer), tube/AB/A/D amp had it's own resolution/delay/transient characteristic and also own conductor, speaker cable also another conductor and finally the speaker also had it's own conductor, transducer etc. To put it in more simpler term, you had to know what you're doing.
If your IC cable isn't the significant portion (length) and it's not the weakest chain among the source/DAP, amp, speaker cable, transducer, room sound etc... It's not gonna be the dominance effects. For simplified example, if you use gold IC but use brass in speaker cable (in equal length), you probably won't hear the IC cable characteristic.
But to say IC cable's specs don't make different in analog signal, or anyone who can hear the differences is just have some brain deceiving message, mentally unstable lunatic, snake-oil psychology, propaganda, ignorant and etc. Those are flimsy/low probability/unsupported/blindspotted hypothesis at best, disinformation/defamation/self centered's ignorant at worst.
It's like connecting a pure copper conducter both end to some random stone. Then supplying power, measure and subsequently claim those whole electricity, conducttivity, electron and etc sciences are all voodoo/propaganda.
Did i really see the link and "science" explanation in this forum or other person posted? Or I'm just a arrogant self-absorbed/ self center prick?
Yes ofcourse I do read, thanks for your asking (passive agressive sarcasm, get it?). I'd find tons of useful informations in this forum, but also tons of disinformation as well.
Ofcourse by tons I mean probably dozens or few dozens cause I'm not omnipotent and had limited time. For same reason if I see some disinformation that I don't agree, usually I had the decency to keep it to myself unless that's what they ask, I have more free time, and/or it's kinda related to what I'm still not sure/researching.
For one example of disinformation, "The most quoted video on ASR". This is so low level disinformation, it's utterly bullshit, and completely devoid of common sense. If the person in video actually can do an impression of Roy in "The IT Crowd", it probably wouldn't makes me weep for humanity, probably. (Reasons can refer to part A)
Two examples of the article that I find useful are Erin and Benny's Eris 3.5 review. Before I stumbled on Erin's article I just listening the monitor from 1.5-1.8 meter (avoid boost bass) and constantly switching both the monitors horizontal angle from cross (Left monitor to right ear and vice versa) or both 10-15 degree away from ear(both have their pros and con). The placement method I use is fine for casual listening (for this price and without room treatment), but when I tried to edit my recording in midnight I do find listen close distance to speaker in small volume does considerately bossting bass, which isn't big deal for me cause I still had my Grado, but it do make me wonder why. After looking at the graph I understand the reason, it's the port's distance with your head. If something had a port in it, it's meant to listen in a sweetspot distance cause the port pressure and subwoofer loudness are exponential due to the fixed size of port hole. That being said, before and after the article I've never considered to stuff the port, because thermodynamic. But I do greatly appreciate the super details measurement and the DSP suggestion, it keep out the guessing work and make it pinpoint accurate, not to mention able listen to closer distance.
I also agree to Benny's Eris 3.5 woofer review. I like the sound of the speaker. But when compared to Adam audio T5V I'd blown away by latter's high, let's just say it's above a level. I don't blame the Eris 3.5 though, cause I think it's kinda the technology limitation for high efficient speaker, like my Grado(Tried few low effcient headphone like 6XX, never actually liked those).
I do encountered some durability issue with Eris 3.5, 1st pair unable to power on within 1.5 years without being abuse in anyway. After lots of hassle, but long story short, they agreed to waive the repair charges. Which could be a deal breaker for me cause the repair fees they charge and for the duration, t5V would eventually be cheaper (5 years warranty).
Will try to poweroff whenever possible for 2nd pair to see how long it'll last.
The myth of why I'd spell transcient response instead of transient response.
It's actually very simple, I gave the "transient response" a "C". (Get it? Nevermind if you don't)
Sometime a nerd joke like this is a good tester for toxidity level of community on internet/society in general. Don't you agree?
Joking aside, I have my own philosophy in speedwriting and the most efficient/simplify way to explaining something. Ofcourse I would make amendment if it could potential create confusion, but other than that it's not worth the efforts.
Just as I can easily pour out a bowl of cereal, categorize those on 13 other bowls based on their thickness, size, colour and smell. But I won't, cause science class students and specifically engineers generally aren't that "special". I may have very high level of literature skill, music taste, sense of humour etc, but I'm no art student.
Google "the importance of first and last letter positions in words' recognition", it's at least decade old and pretty elementary in signal processing.
It's highly unlikely an unnamed person/total stranger on internet make the discovery of century.
True to some extent, but not applicable in my case.
Cause I'm based my hypothesis on some unreliable researchs, done by unreliable brand/person behind those brand, with unreliable knowledges taught by unreliable books and unreliable university where I come from. Also equally important is that english is my 2nd/3rd/4rd language(to be precise), so with those devastating odds miracle probably doesn't happen.
But just because I "magically" understand what they're talking about based on all those unreliable informations. It really doesn't make me discover it. Another opinion based disinformation I'd like to point out.
Ok, I think 4 would be probably enough. Cause although I might accidentally make it kinda funny, the entertainment value actually drop pretty quickly on this side. Also integrity and sincerity probably mean nothing on internet, even on the real world.
But in a world of gold fish, right?