venkey

Computer science has agreed on a definition of lossless compression. When you're named dean at MIT, you can propose a different definition. If the mean time, you're not free to redefine the language.

Ok, so if you're not willing to post or even describe your cosmologist approved simulation, tell us what it predicts that the isn't predicted by just applying maxwell's equations? Why do you think a simulation is needed as opposed to just deriving a new math model? What are the problems with the standard transmission line model that every undergrad ee learns? Finally, should you describe why your model or simulation is more accurate than what every ee professor teaches their students or should every ee professor describe why that they have taught and refined for decades is more accurate than the model developed by some IT tech support guy in Texas.

You seem fixated on a simulation. Why do you need a simulation for a problem with an explicit solution? Is there a special footnote to Maxwell's equations that says good for all electrons except those used in high end audio?

It's just the opposite. You claimed to have a model. I asked to see it. Your response was show me the model I never claimed to have. If you're going to practice empty sophistry, do a better job.

Simulations are what you do when you don't have a good math model, not because you never took fields and waves or can't understand PDE.

I won't comment on your admission of limited intellect.

Here's the standard model. It works for RF. It works for antennas. It works for the wires that connect your gigabit and higher network cables. You have to prove that audio elections are different. Let's see your model. I gave this stuff up years ago, running an algo energy desk is much more interesting. Transmission Line Analysis Equation

This is not really a text but a review of the current literature and understanding It not only ignores the issues in the high end memes but is probably useless for people who aren’t specialists. My quick scan of the text may have been imperfect. Here’s a pointer to a free pdf version available on the net. Could you point out where it discusses these issues? http://api.ning.com/files/E7U2rwfRbqoUnx62jTX9KBgECLEfzMkdFgu5EBdVvYp5R90ICtPSrl3l7AkeSXeFAIVGah3H2aYsUXUSIJYPHOFYqSzViw92/ComputationalModelsoftheAuditorySystem.pdf

What on earth are you talking about? Speaker cables are no different from any other transmission line except they have trivial frequency range, signal to noise and power requirements. These are very well understood and the math involved may be beyond you but any decent EE undergrad understands it. Your "early universe" modeling buddies use math and techniques completely unrelated to your "speaker cable modeling". There are real engineers on this board, Post your model for them to see.

Mentioning recent research that's different from established and accepted science is meaningless without a citation.

Actually, the answer is well known outside the memes of high end audio. Psychology plays a very big part in how people perceive sound. In many ways the so called “objectivists” are the ultimate subjectivists. They understand that people hear differences that support their viewpoints regardless of the fact there is no difference in the actual signal. What surprises me is that people who are willing to spend 4 figures on a speaker cable aren’t willing to spend a few dollars to purchase and then read one of the standard texts on the subject of hearing perception before they make a purchase with pretty close to zero value added relative to significantly less expensive alternatives. Here's one book to start. It, in fact, discusses this very topic in the last chapter. Amazon.com: An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, 5th Edition (9780125056281): Brian Moore: Books

If you google that quote, you will find its from a Positive Feedback column written by a well known fact free lunatic. Its wrong on both counts. Early solid state amplifiers suffered from a well understood problem that was particularly pronounced with transistors called crossover distortion. You can find discussions of jitter in a/d and d/a conversion in Bell System Technical Journal as far back as 1963.

Fine, lets say that's correnct. Tell us what should be measured and you propose to make that measurement.

Actually, the unique aspect of high end audio as measurement equipment has improved the rejection of measurements has increased.

In fact, there's OECD wide intergenerational shift of assets from the young to the old. It applies to the US as well.