Here is a snippet: "Mainstream AES-school engineers have ridiculed "audiophile" power cords for many years, but EMI emission from solid-state-rectifier power supplies is no joke. ... The fancy power cords may be doing their greatest benefit by partially shielding the dirty power supplies from other solid-state equipment and CD players." ...
The power cord goes between the wall and the power supply. Their example says the power supply emits EMI. They say the cord
shields your device from the EMI emitted from other devices?The chassis doesn't do that? Or if the EMI is travelling backwards out of the emitting device, along the wires in the wall, through your expensive cord and then into your device... well wouldn't an actual EMI filter work better than an expensive cord?
Lynn Olson is generally knowledgeable, so it seems odd to me that he's suggesting what he does. More specifically, he says that EMI emitted disrupts the circuit within a particular device, but goes on to suggest that the audiophile power cord protects other devices in the chain (rather than the device it is attached to).
I skimmed the article, and notice that his main assertion is sonic don't match THD measurements. He says it's about odd vs even (maybe). I didn't see him mention that feedback reduces THD, and you can get something to "measure perfect" with enough feedback. But feedback doesn't correct intermodulation distortion, which sounds more obtrusive than simple harmonic distortion. You fix IM distortion with good design.
Look... I briefly worked in a wire/cable shop when I was in the Navy doing electronic stuff. They had machines that wove wire and cloth braids around the cables. I notice that all of the audiophile cables have cloth braid over them. Those machine are enormous and must be very expensive; I suspect customers are amortizing the machines the company bought when they pay those silly prices.