Stereophilus

Then it is not unfair to say that our knowledge in the area of audibility is quite incomplete. As you say, there are many variables, and a complete synthesis of this seems unlikely, especially when individual (person to person) variations are factored in. I did pull you up on this, not because I expected you to have the studies at your finger tips (although sometimes you do surprise me, Dave), but because we need to be careful about our assumed knowledge... As I iterated many pages back in this very thread.

Hearing aids are, at their simplest, a microphone + amplifier + speaker... amplifying all noise outside the ear and concentrating onto the tympanum. The better ones selectively amplify the speech range. The super deluxe ones cancel out ambient noise. Cochlear implants work on the same principle. Instead of a speaker they use an implanted electrode in the cochlear with small electrical impulses to excite nerve endings within the cochlear directly, bypassing the the tympanum, middle ear and basilar membrane. As the positioning of the nerves in the cochlear determines their frequ

I'm not sure that is true. Do you have anything to support this? We do have a lot of experimental data on audibility. A lot of it exists at a very basic level. Not a lot of data exists about audibility of complex sound waveforms with constant variability of amplitude, frequency and harmonics. This crosses over with the debate about the subjectivity of hearing and double blind tests and test subject control. "Understood" is, in my view, a very large assumption based on inadequate data.

At the risk of drawing further ire, this is what i have used previously: https://shunyata.com/2014/05/02/electrical-system-optimization/ There is some annoying use of propritary acronyms scattered throughout. If you can ignore that, it is very thorough from a "whole system" perspective.

I would think FFT is all we need when looking at the mains side in the scenario we are describing. I have a concern that a step down transformer if used in the measurement chain will itself act as a low pass filter of sorts, potentially skewing any findings. I don’t follow why rectification is the next step... we are aiming to measure the output of equipment connected to mains power. Our variable will be different power cords. We are only seeking to monitor the mains in this scenario.

This is now the second manufacturer to claim high frequency mains noise as being what they perceive as problematic for home audio applications. It is not pseudo-science to say they are attenuating high-frequency mains noise with skin effect. It is a simple filter. Power cords can be filters for mains noise. The question the sceptical mind must ask of this article is “does removal of high frequency mains noise make an audible difference to audio equipment?” This would be worth pursuing, with relevance to this thread being that the output of connected equipment could be compared

I will quote @rmpfyf in reply. "There is a lot of good that could come out of this effort that merits the intelligence and shared interests of everyone (and I mean everyone) on this thread."

I wasnt being specific. I would hope everyone keeps an open mind. Growth of knowledge can lead to eventual change on either side. I would argue that progress in this debate is growth of knowledge, not proof of endpoint.

Im not sure if this will be palatable for you guys, but can we ignore preconcieved endpoints? Sure we all have opinions, but why not indulge a whim to experiment here and see what happens? Putting this into personal perspective, I sit on the subjective side of this debate, but I am thoroughly willing to have my opinions challenged, and to grow my knowledge by being in some small way involved here. I am curious. I want to know more about my hobby. I want good measurements even if they show nothing. My opinion may not change... But my experience and knowledge will.

Collectively? Yes. Individually, not so much. Some minds involved in this discussion are set... Set so firmly that the seeming intent of their being here is to undermine the curiosity of others. Meaning the outcome is already known? I respectfully disagree. I would like to think the debate here reflects a group of objectivists helping a group of subjectivists to find measurements that support their experiences. If no such measurements can be found then we go back to our respective individual camps. The OP is making an honourable attempt at bringing 2 disparite groups together, som

I’m going to quote John Darko here: “speculation is no substitute for experience; that curiosity is what pushes us to experience new things; and that without curiosity we’d just dig ourselves ever deeper into the trenches of our preconceptions and prejudice.” What I see in the subject line of this thread is curiosity. Unfortunately what I see scattered through subsequent pages is a lot of speculation without experience. I don’t want to speak for @rmpfyf but I think anyone posting here to dig in their preconceptions deeper is lacking the required curiosity

Mark Waldrep (aka Dr. AIX) was the author I believe. There was some question at the time as to whether “Patrick” actually existed. Certainly a cautionary tale, but the real truth of that (and his other reported audio show adventures) may never be known.

Was it this one?

See above

There is some merit to what you suggest, although it comes at a significant cost! I bought a PS Audio AC12 power cord on eBay about 13 years ago. Bargain price of $300 with original packaging too. First “audiophile” power cable I ever bought. Beautiful design, and so thick it was quite inflexible. Problem was it sounded bloody awful. I emailed Paul McGowan and told him what I thought of his power cable. He asked for photos, then asked me to “disassemble” it with a hack saw. Turns out it was a cheap Chinese rip off, albeit externally a very convincing one. “Once burned twice