Steven Sullivan wrote:
Lawrence Leung wrote:
chung wrote in news:RKFLb.8211$sv6.21706@attbi_s52:

So, some questions for you, is Mr. Harley an electrical engineer or
physicist? Does he have a cable theory, or is he just passing out his
opinions? What does he say about budget for cables?

Go read it yourself, and you will understand.

I have it open in front of me...his chapter on cables, like the
rest of the book, is a mix of solid fact, good advice, and
ridiculous assertion, assumption, and speculation.
E.g. from p. 322: "Note that copper isn;t isotropic; it looks decidedly
different in one direction than the other. Al copper made into thin
wires exhibits a chevron structure. THis chevron structure may
explain why some cables sound different when reversed."

That isn't *theory*..that's *putting the cart before the horse*.

Not to mention the fact that he did not understand that the current
flowing through the cable is AC: it flows in both directions. There
would be measureable distortion if resistance is different depending on
direction. There is a Noble prize waiting here for someone to establish
that...


and p 312 " Not only is the sound of a cable partially system-dependent,
but the sonic characteristics of a specific cable will work better musically
in some systems than others.....Fortunately, evluation cables and interconnects
is relatively simple; the levels are automatically matched between cables,
and you don't have to be concerned about absolute-polarity reversal. One pitfall,
however, is that cables and interconnects need to to break in before they sound their
best."

There is no, zero, scientific evidence presented for this astonishing
claim. With good reason: there isn't any to present.


Mr. Harley has totally destroyed any shred of credibility he might have
as an objective reviewer, with statements like that.