Holographic imaging

Roger, I have many times had test tones being played through loudspeakers with microphones and frequency counters in use- never in the years of working in and out of the recording studio have I ever observed a connection between gain and pitch as you assert, nor have I until now, known anyone to make such an assertion. How have you measured this effect to prove or disprove your hypothesis and add what outcomes does it suggest?

I have also been able to alter the speed of the amplifier circuit (speed in this case being equal to slew rate) and again seen no measurable effect on pitch. How were you able to test your hypothesis in these conditions?

For a given change in gain, say 20 db, how much change in pitch will be measured?

So- how do you measure Doppler effect in an amplifier?
What is the unit of measure? What test equipment do you use for this? How much DE is reduced by your circuit?

Guitar and synthesizer players often use a tuning device that mutes the output of the guitar so the musician can tune the instrument silently, then after that, regardless of volume, the pitch will be found to be in tune. This does not seem to matter whether there are tube or transistor amps in the signal chain.

IME again, I have found that the measurable propagation delay in an amplifier circuit does not change with the input level. How do you square this with your hypothesis? Do you have a different meaning for the word 'speed'? If so, could you define it?

Again IME by changing the volume in my system, I've never experienced a change in the soundstage perspective- that of being in the 10th row as opposed to the 2nd row for example. I would describe sound as seeming the same 'distance' away, just not as loud -certainly not a change in perspective! Does your hypothesis support exceptions or does it predict that the experience of perspective is universal?

Since when listening I am usually seated, why exactly should I care if there is Doppler effect if I move? In a real life situation, would you not also experience Doppler? It seems to me that you would want to preserve the Doppler effects of real life music. What am I missing?

I have noticed that sometimes when I increase the volume level, besides the sound getting louder, the soundstage seems to get bigger. Despite what might appear to be an obvious deduction, I don't necessarily get the impression that I am actually closer.

Roger,

I understand your descriptions of Doppler effect in regards to sound waves propagating outside of the amp, nothing new there, but not how the same thing occurs in the electrical domain within the amp.

Atmasphere's questions seem relevant.

Wikipedia section on amplifiers talks about a lot of things including use of negative feedback but Doppler is not mentioned.

Unsound, Tvad,

You’re right the concert hall was not meant to imply a change in perspective by switching seats. Just that it was convenient to illustrate changes in distance from the sound object and how it does impact the pitch as your movement occurs. And yes it would be below the threshold of human perception to actually hear a change in pitch as you are walking from front to back or vice versa. But the principal still applies. The 3 locations, front row, 10th row and 20th row represent relative settings in gain which if you were to “jump” between them would in fact throw off the perceived pitch.

Atmasphere,

Thank you for your response. The speed of the amplifier you refer to (slew rate) only addresses the “vertical” speed of the amplifier circuit. What I am referring to with velocity is the lateral or horizontal speed of the circuit. IOW my interest is in the manner that a given input signal travels from input to output and more importantly is it (the velocity) constant.

Regards,

Roger

Grant,

I can tell you from personal experience patents are a very expensive proposition. Once you have obtained a patent and its published it is open for all to see. A 20 percent change in the original design is often all that is nessasary to get around the original design. If you have the bucks to litigate well then you may have a chance. If you don't, then think twice about doing so. Electronic circuits sometimes are potted with material that disguise whats in side. If you remove the potting material you may destroy the design underneath. I suppose you could always x-ray the underneath. Also in prototype developement when the product is tested or any pre release publicity is issued describing the product in drawing or photos you have one year from the first disclosure date to file for patent protection. Tom

Grant.

Sorry I jumped in line here. Like I said this was my own personal experience. I did speak to Roger about a year ago, about the Doppler effect. I have never heard his products anywhere anytime. I hope too encounter them at some time. I had to recently reconsider this whole patent process again, its costs and its benefits. Further enhancements to your existing patent requires more disclosure and more money. So Grant when I saw your question of Roger I was relating my own recent re experience. Tom

The problem with the amplifier doppler shift theory is that it hinges on a redefinition of the term "doppler shift." At least in science, terms have precise meanings, almost always defined mathematically. Redefining the terms renders the terms meaningless.

The doppler shift refers to a shift in the frequency of a wave due to relative motion between the receiver (the person or the recoding medium in this case) and the source of the wave. The electrical signal traveling through the amplifier cannot have a doppler shift with respect to the receiver because the person is not a receiver for the electrical wave. The person only becomes the receiver when the signal is the sound wave. Whatever happens inside the amplifier has nothing to do with doppler shift.

The original proffered argument for doppler shift in audio equipment was that the motion of the microphone transducer or the speaker driver relative to the sound source wave source or sound wave receiver, respectively, caused a doppler shift. This is also untenable because it falls outside the accepted scientific definition for doppler shift. The source of the wave and the reciever of the wave are independent of the existence of the wave in the definition. The motion of the speaker driver creates the sound wave; the motion is the source. Hence, there can be no doppler shift resulting from that motion because the wave does not exist without the motion. The same thing is true on the microphone end. The motion of the transducer creates the electrical wave. So there is no doppler shift resulting from that motion, by definition.

The receiver has to be able to receive the signal whose source is in motion relative to the receiver. If not, there is not a doppler shift.

>> The electrical signal traveling through the amplifier cannot have a doppler shift with respect to the receiver because the person is not a receiver for the electrical wave. The person only becomes the receiver when the signal is the sound wave. Whatever happens inside the amplifier has nothing to do with doppler shift.<<

Musicnoise,

I understand your confusion in this matter. Let me try to put it a different way. We all use computers and are familiar with “ZIP’ files yes? For those who don’t know – it simply a way to compress a file using an algorithm which when de-compressed or unzipped will restore/recover the original file. If you write a letter to someone and “zip” it up – email it to your friend and he “unzips” it on his PC he will have a virtual copy of the original file. The analogy is a stretch but stay with me.

If you use an editor program and make small changes to the zip file (while it is in the zipped format) and then unzip it. What would you get? Well depending on how much you tampered with it – you may have some misspelled words, an extra character or some other deviation from the original letter.

The point is that even though the “output” letter was properly decoded by the unzip program, the letter displays the results of damage done to it while it was in another format.

If you record a voice speaking into a microphone – the acoustic energy striking the mic is converted to the “electrical world”. This electrical format is the handled as you would expect in a long journey until finally it is converted back to acoustic energy by your loudspeakers. If however you tamper with the signal in while it is still in the electrical format - what you will hear (after conversion) by your loudspeakers is the acoustic equivalent of the damage done to the recording. In this case it is the Doppler you describe as only made possible by some physical motion in the acoustic world.

It is possible for an event that is occurring inside an amplifier to have this very effect on the outside world. In this case the person becomes the receiver of sound waves that contain the extra sonic effects that are the direct result of a signal passing through an unstable electrical world. The encode/decode algorithms at a finite level do not match.

Regards,

Roger

Roger, the term for the time it takes a signal to pass through an amplifier is called Propagation Delay. It is usually a constant at all frequencies within the pass band of the amplifier circuit. But- has nothing to do with Doppler Effect.

I noticed that you did not answer any of my questions. Do you have intention of doing so?

Roger paul: There is no confusion. What you initially described is not doppler shift and your analogy and most recent explanation is contrived, at best. You are not describing doppler shift. My suspicion is that this adherence to an obviously incorrect series of statements involves a profit or justification for a purchase. The explanations are so far from the truth that there must be some motivation.

Tvad: Thanks for the heads up. I had not noticed that he was selling wares connected with his theories. Certainly explains the explanations.

Atmasphere,

Yes I am familiar with Propagation Delay and all the classic textbook terms that pertain to amplifiers.
None of which was helpful in troubleshooting the real issues facing a relatively simple task of making a small signal larger.

I built my first TUBE amplifier in 1969 :)

Yes - I intend to answer your questions

Roger

Just an end users comment here: I own Ralph's gear and to my and my fiends ears, he has solved the "the real issues facing...(the) task of making a small signal larger" to all our great musical satisfaction. I am not familiar with the A- or whatever CAT, so I cannot form an opinion if it is really that break-through which some make it out to be. Generally however, good old Bill does not use his acid squirt gun without good reason, but what do I know. I know however, and that for certain, that in a well set up rig, volume and pitch do not have anything to do with each other. My better half and I are blessed, or cursed if you like, with a "the absolute ear", she especially would notice the tiniest aberration in pitch, in fact I use her to set up my TT and I would have noticed something like that in all those long decades of listening to music at home.

Alright Roger, how do you square:

Yes I am familiar with Propagation Delay and all the classic textbook terms that pertain to amplifiers.
None of which was helpful in troubleshooting the real issues facing a relatively simple task of making a small signal larger.

with

What I am referring to with velocity is the lateral or horizontal speed of the circuit. IOW my interest is in the manner that a given input signal travels from input to output and more importantly is it (the velocity) constant.

Not to put words in your mouth, but it looks very much to me from the second comment (which is a description of Propagation Delay) that you are contradicting the first. Am I missing something?

I'm really interested in seeing the answers to my questions!

Atmasphere,

The misunderstanding is (and this is my fault) when I refer to the speed of the amplifier – I meant its velocity. IOW the speed that a signal travels through a circuit. Propagation delay refers to the amount of time the signal spends in the circuit and while it is directly related to the speed of the traveling signal – it can only indicate the AVERAGE speed since the comparison is base on the time it took a signal to enter and exit the circuit. What happens in-between is not monitored - it is assumed.

This is the area of interest to me.

As far your question..
“For a given change in gain, say 20 db, how much change in pitch will be measured?”

This is the same misunderstanding that Detlof has with his statement…
“I know however, and that for certain, that in a well set up rig, volume and pitch do not have anything to do with each other.”

Please read slowly --- It is not the volume setting you are listing at that affects the pitch. It is the CHANGE in volume that affects the pitch. Let me reverse that statement. The pitch will change as you increase or decrease the volume. Once you take you hand off the volume control, the pitch is the same no matter where you left to volume.

Hope this helps :)

Roger

Musicnoise,

Please accept my apologies. I certainly thought you were aware that I am the designer of H-CAT.
There are many references within this thread that may have indicated this earlier.
When this topic of holographic imaging started – I was very interested to read about the variety of opinions and experiences of audiophiles. After all, to me this was something that I have studied for many years. The results of my work I am willing to share with those who are interested.

Regards,

Roger

It is the CHANGE in volume that affects the pitch

Since you make no mention of frequency (group delay). I take this to mean that you suspect that the absolute signal level changes the propagation delay in the circuit. This is a non-linearity that should cause IMD distortion and it should be measureable. (Signal level or amplitude is modulating the frequency of output - creating new frequencies. For example a cymbal high frequency sound riding on top of a large oscillating bass guitar note - as the bass guitar signal goes up it changes the of pitch of the cymbal HF sound - giving side bands)

FWIW - this is already a huge problem in speakers and especially those with overhung voice coils that are not particularly linear throughout their driver excursion.

Roger,

What happens in-between is not monitored - it is assumed.

This is not true; this is in fact what Propagation Delay **is**. Any opamp designer and any amplifier designer worth his salt will be quite concerned about that number!

So- its only when volume is *changed* that pitch is affected? So as long as we don't change the volume, there's no worries.

It must be a subtle effect as there are Voltage Control Amplifiers on my synthesizer that I routinely use to modulate my volume with a Low Frequency Oscillator (as an effect), but I've never associated that with a pitch change nor has anyone mentioned it on the various synthesizer groups I monitor (and they talk about a lot of stuff like this). My instrument tuner can't detect a difference either!

So- you did not answer the question- over a 20db range, how much pitch change will be observed? Let's assume that the volume is being changed by 20db over a period of 1/2 second.
I assume you must have documented effects like this in order to prove or disprove your hypothesis, so you must also therefore be able to predict the pitch change if you know the volume change over time. there must be a formula? Like Pitch=something something X frequency divided by time :)

“So- its only when volume is *changed* that pitch is affected? So as long as we don't change the volume, there's no worries.”

Atmasphere,
Now we are getting somewhere – here is the other shoe dropping.
You don’t have to manually change the volume (yourself) – your amplifier is changing the gain on the fly.
It is the unstable nature of the instantaneous gain that is constantly altering the velocity and therefore pitch.
The tiny changes in pitch also represent the shifting of the perceived location of that sound object on the stage.

Roger

“My instrument tuner can't detect a difference either!”

Atmasphere,

I think I’m realizing why it is so difficult to absorb what I’m claiming.
Not to make things worse but I should mention that my work with amplifiers has taken place at microscopic levels. I have studied the behavior of circuits as they operate or are set into motion.
Since this is far below the radar of test equipment – it is done in a theoretical realm
The changes in gain that I have tried to give as examples are gross exaggerations done in order to make a point that you can recognize at a large scale. In fact the changes in gain that I deal with are typically 1/100th of a db. or less. You will never see this with a spectrum analyzer or o’scope. The tiny changes in gain however will definitely manifest themselves as obvious to the listener when your brain detects the unstable placement of a given sound object in the deployed sound field.

Roger

You don’t have to manually change the volume (yourself) – your amplifier is changing the gain on the fly

I understood that from your previous post. My question is why we do not see this in THD and IMD figures or an analyzer which looks at the distribution of harmonics - it appears to be a non-linearity much like any other. (I would still expect speakers to be far worse than an amp on this issue)

This holography stuff is starting to scare me.

I think I'll just go 2-d.

"09-26-08: Tvad
The realm of that which cannot be measured."

Yes - but it can be heard.

Roger

Shadorne,

You are on the right track. The reason you can’t see it with a THD analyzer is because it is way too subtle to show up. If somehow you alter the gain/velocity by a factor of 2:1 double the velocity! Then your 1khz signal will shift up to 2khz. A full octave away! That is represented by the spike you see on a spectrum analyzer at the 2khz mark. The length of time it spends at this accelerated velocity will determine the size of the spike.

Now imagine a much smaller shift in velocity like 1:1.005
This will cause a 1khz tone to shift up to 1005 hz At this level it is a mere twinkle in the eye of “harmonic distortion” but is distortion nonetheless. In fact the worse case example (2:1 above) actually had to pass through 1005 hz to get to 2 khz. This is because it is analog and continuous and therefore cannot be in 2 places at once. (Translation) Energy measured at 2khz is missing from the fundamental frequency (1khz) for the length of time it has been shifted. The same is true for the shifted 1005 hz energy.

Roger

Tvad,

How can you criticize someone for taking the fight against distortion to the next level?
I am merely taking the known accepted principles of the modern THD analyzer down a few notches more in terms of detection. Its not my fault that the analyzers are not sensitive enough to show you what is going on. The only reason it is a theory is because I have been forced to work around the inadequacies of the present day analyzer.

I’m sure at least half the people reading this thread know exactly what I’m talking about. Remember the arguments about how SS equipment should sound better than tubes because of the holy THD measurements where so much lower? You tube guys know that that was BS. Why? Because there was something being missed by the analyzers that was “unseen” and did not jive with the tube amp measurements which were typically higher.

I'm not talking about odd/even harmonics either. THD analyzers could not hear transparency, inner detail, staging etc.

You cannot use the simple logic that if you can’t measure it – it isn’t there.
Your own textbooks can verify my explanation of Doppler distortion if you simply apply what I am saying at a small scale to a higher scale so it fits into your world of measurements.

What is it about an amplifier that makes it produce harmonic distortion?

Anyone?

Roger, 1/100th of a db? Really? So if the change in pitch cannot be detected by **musical instrument** tuning devices (which are quite sensitive, much more so that any frequency counter I've seen), it follows that it cannot also be heard by the human ear, but you say it can. How do you square your apparently contradictory statement?

The **amplifier** is changing gain? What is the mechanism for that?

You've still not answered any of my previous questions yet. I've distilled them below:

1) How have you measured this effect to prove or disprove your hypothesis and add what outcomes does it suggest?

2)Given that a change in the speed of the amplifier has produce no measurable result, how were you able to test your hypothesis?

3)For a given change in gain, say 20 db, over a period of 1/2 second how much change in pitch will be measured?

4)How do you measure Doppler effect in an amplifier?

5)What is the unit of measure?

6)What test equipment do you use for this?

7)How much DE is reduced by your circuit?

8)IME again, I have found that the measurable propagation delay in an amplifier circuit does not change with the input level. How do you square this with your hypothesis?

9)Does your hypothesis support exceptions or does it predict that the experience of perspective is universal?

10)Since when listening I am usually seated, why exactly should I care if there is Doppler effect if I move?

11)In a real life situation, would you not also experience Doppler?

12)It seems to me that you would want to preserve the Doppler effects of real life music. true/false?

Am I to understand that these "microscopic" changes are inherent in all other amplifier technologies, including typical ss, tubes, switching and conversion (TacT) except the H-Cat? Am I to understand that the H-Cat can accurately correct the unmeasurable and furthermore do so on the fly? Am I also to understand that these "microscopic" changes might be variable depending on up stream components, and that these "microscopic" changes happening at various points in a circuit are either consitent in nature or that the knob on your gear allows (without any digital measurement or comparison) the user to either coordinate these "microscopic" changes and/or sum and correct the "microscopic" changes without any form of measurement?

Roger,

The reason you can’t see it with a THD analyzer is because it is way too subtle to show up. If somehow you alter the gain/velocity by a factor of 2:1 double the velocity! Then your 1khz signal will shift up to 2khz. A full octave away! That is represented by the spike you see on a spectrum analyzer at the 2khz mark. The length of time it spends at this accelerated velocity will determine the size of the spike.

Within the statement above occurs a contradiction. This one (the 3rd I have encountered since I began engaging in this conversation), has the spike "too subtle to show up" while in nearly the same breath is apparently visible at "the 2KHz mark". So which is it- really?

Unsound,

Bingo!

Yes - exactly.

Roger

"Perhaps it'd be best to just sell the H-Cat without trying to attribute it's effectiveness to an unverifiable theory..."

Ignorance is bliss if it sounds good.

Unsound,

I'm assuming your reference to "that the knob on your gear" is the Wavefront Timing Control (now on the remote).

The internal Doppler detection and correction happens in real time and in a pure analog mode. These detectors handle the dynamic changes in velocity (on the fly) while the WTC handles the static velocity correction that is the result of all upstream and downstream electronics.

There is of course a limit to the extent it can recover the source dimensional venue. It cannot “fix” a bad recording.

Atmasphere,

I’m sorry the first sentence should have been separated from the second sentence.
And I did not say that a spike was too subtle to show up. I was saying that the reason that the Doppler shift would not show up is because it is not nearly as strong a shift or event to cause enough energy to slide up the spectrum and show up as a spike. In all likelihood it resides so close to the fundamental (spike) as to be hidden by it. A 1khz spike with a smaller 1005 hz (spike) would be difficult to discern.

Roger

My closest experience with holography was at a NYC Stereophile show years ago. The demo was in the David Wilson room and his source was the Basis Evolution turntable. He played a cut from an LP called "Bob and Ray throw a Stereo Spectacular" in which you can "see" the butler's footsteps scale up the stairs.

David Wilson was demonstrating the differences between 3d realism from analog and how its diminished thru redbook.

Lets assume that a 200 Hz bass note is modulating the 1000 Hz note.

This will cause a 1khz tone to shift up to 1005 hz At this level it is a mere twinkle in the eye of “harmonic distortion” but is distortion nonetheless.

Not the way I understand Fourier analysis. You would not get a 1005 Hz note (this note only exists in theory or in the infinitessimally short space of time or "twinkle of an eye" and you woudl not be able to hear it as it would have no power spectrum as it does not exist over time).

I think you would end up with a 1 Khz signal with side bands at 1200 Khz and 800 hz and 1400 Khz and 600 hz etc. etc. as the non-linearity would cause IMD that had a power spectrum that relates to the mixing of the 200 Hz bass note with 1 Khz tone under a non linear amplifying condition.

The way I understand fourier analysis - shifts in time are similar to other non linearities and can be treated that way - in the same way jitter shows up as side band distortion on audio signals when jitter has a distinct periodicity to the signal (i.e not just uncorrelated random jitter that will simply raise the noise floor).

Achieving a 3-d hologram is (to me) the very goal of this hobby. It isn't an artifact...It's success. It's symetry of gear and room and a great recording. When I have Ray Brown playing that double bass in true 3-d hanging between my speakers, being able to walk around him, that's a GOOD thing.

"Bingo". Wow, that's incredible.

Shadorne,

Your statement, "Lets assume that a 200 Hz bass note is modulating the 1000 Hz note."
Followed by my line – “This will cause a 1khz tone to shift up to 1005 hz”
Makes no sense – I was referring to an instantaneous shift in velocity of 1:1.005

Roger

I was referring to an instantaneous shift in velocity of 1:1.005

Well you'll have to be more precise then if you want to help me understand. What you have described is just too vague for me to follow which is why I gave a specifc example with specific frequencies with a hypothetical result.

FWIW- We don't hear "instantaneous shifts in velocity" - we hear sound vibrations or oscillations which is why I tried to boil things down to frequencies and power that would result from IMD distortion from two frequencies passing through a non-linear amplifier. (non-linear meaning that the signal gets amplified differently depending on its level)

BTW an "instantaneous shift in velocity" would cause a sharp discontinuity in what is normally a smooth waveform - it would necessarily contain lots of high frequencies and not 1005 Hz. This is a fundamental fact from mathematics.

Roger, you don't seem interested in answering my questions. Its been a while since I first posted them and you have made a number of posts in the meantime.

So: I don't think you have any intention and that is borne out by your actions.

You have contradicted yourself at nearly every turn, I could pass that off as poor writing skills but re-reading them has brought me to a different conclusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

The explanation of a circuit that does something, based on a principle that cannot be measured in any way by any type of test or laboratory equipment, cannot be quantified, verified, with no mathematical relation or formula, cannot be heard and can only be explained yet contradicted by the designer of the circuit is a complex explanation.

The simple (correct) explanation is a circuit that either does nothing, or does something, and the principle behind it is simple (for example, a tonal coloration), and whatever it is really doing is something that the designer refuses to divulge or is clueless about.

IMO we are dealing with a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. IOW I'm with Tvad on this one.

I think you got him Ralph;check and mate.

Atmasphere,

Sorry It's been a long day and I do have a life.
I will try to get back to you soon.

Regards,

Roger

Shadorne,

I stand corrected. I should not have described the shift in velocity as instantaneous. That would be a near digital event. I was thinking of an instant in time where the velocity has shifted slightly higher – causing the 1000 hz to appear as 1005 hz. I am certainly aware that all deviations from true linearity are generally “smooth” transitions. (A kind of bend or warp in the shape of the sine wave.)

This brings me back to my earlier attempt to describe a 2khz measurement from a 1khz fundamental. The shape of the sine wave will have to have at least a portion of its rise or fall time doubled in speed. That is a considerable “bend” in the shape to be “seen” by the THD analyzer as twice the frequency (harmonic).

If you can reduce the bending and warping to a fraction of that amount – you can limit the distortion to one of mere phase shift instead of frequency shift. Instead of the energy sliding up the spectrum to 2khz - it only moves slightly up the spectrum and is limited to a region at or around the fundamental frequency. (1005 hz)

If you can detect the START of this deviation AS IT HAPPENS and correct it on the fly – it will never have a chance to inflict damage on the final acoustic output. Dealing with this issue while it was reduced to phase errors instead of frequency errors is why the system I developed is a Doppler control system. The entire complex musical event is phase locked to the fundamental (primary) image. As a result it has a massive stabilizing effect on the perceived location of sound objects and is totally transparent.

Roger

IMO we are dealing with a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. IOW I'm with Tvad on this one.

I second Tvad and Ralph but folks remember I am dumb engineer so I don't believe a tenth of the scientific claims in any subject in the audio domain - unless it fits my college brainwashing, which means it is well known and documented in AES journals (who still make mistakes but far less often or with such hyperbole as found on internet threads or in audio rags).

What surprises me though - is how highly selective we are being - why are we attacking Roger Paul's gear in particular? - I mean there is a lot more out there that is WAY WAY WAY WAY more dubious - magic pebbles, Shakti holograms, $7000 cables, $1000 interconnects - nobody jumps to shout the "Emperor has no clothes" with any of that gear - even if it is patently obvious to anyone with a science background. Why is this?

I suggest a truce here. FWIW - If the H-Cat sounds great (like the Harmonix Holy Grail box I gave a link to earlier in this thread) then for those who like what it does then good luck to 'em - whatever it does is a good thing to those who like it! We don't need to know why - just as nobody can explain why Anjou Pear is so utterly amazing and why dozens of people jump to defend the incredible benefit to be had with esoteric cables when this subject is raised (perhaps they all work for Noel Lee!).

Surely this is a matter of the emperor's new clothes. That was my point with the doppler shift argument. Another classic example of taking a scientifically established effect and then either playing with the definition, as in this case, or taking it out of the range where it makes a difference.

One must remember, the burden always lies with the party asserting that some effect exists, not with those that say it does not. For effects that exist, proof is possible and done with emperical data coupled with mathematically expressed explanations ( not just reference to mathematical terms - which is more of the same), with no leaps of logic or 'filling in the gaps.' And if the effect exists, it will be published in peer reviewed literature (i.e. peers being scientists and engineers in the field and without a pecuniary interest in whether the effect exists or not, not other dealers in audio gear or others whose sole credential is designing audio equipment). Expect to find explanations in, for example, IEEE journals or journals of that caliber and peer review in the applicable scientific field.

When a scientific term with an exact meaning is applied in a manner that steps outside the accepted scientific definition of the term, one need not go any further. This is a sure sign that there is nothing to argue about. It in essence proves the invalidity of any further proffered explanations in support of the theory. All future explanations are built on a stack of cards that has been toppled.