Quite simple: in the end, he outright dismissed all other settings but SHD, as discussed upthread, and I instead gave some reasons why one would want to use the "lesser" settings, based on the differences I hear - he only speculated that some might like a softer, more forgiving presentation; I consider this pedestrian. Apparently I am not alone in preferring SD in some cases when the recording is just not right, nor am I alone in hearing a bit of phasey type of sound in HD, at least with the "lesser" Oracle Matrix cables. In the end, to me Harley is not the kind of reviewer that will (can?) ponder and think the way I do, nor do I feel he gave MIT enough of a benefit of the doubt for providing said switches (despite Brisson's [limited] efforts to explain what they do), and he barely mentioned one single recording in support his findings, just as I did in the very short time I allocated to respond above. I just don't think he spent enough time on the "lesser" settings. I find his reviewing often shallow, full of generalizations, flat if you will, not to mention the tiring king-making (thanks Andre) language issue after issue, which causes a lot of people, including me, to take his and Valin's claims with lots of salt. I just don't think they are sophisticated enough reviewers.
On to your other points Mark, Brisson's explanations are virtually the same as on his web site. He's clearly and understandably trying to avoid discussing electrical terms in TAS, but the crux of the latest invention is in the white paper. The "articulation poles" circuits are in parallel to the signal, but I am sure they affect the interface between amp and speakers (in fact, I am aware of issues with some tube amps). In addition, if you also pay close attention to the shipping boxes, the cables are covered by yet more patents (beyond those pertaining to the industrial design of his cables), some of which introduce inductors in-series with the signal, while others cover inductance as it relates to the turns-per-unit-of-length (that's also in-series), etc. So there is more in there that meets the eye, and yes, at a high level there would be cause for concern, but I personally have gone beyond that, given the audible results. He's basically come up with his own problem description for and solution to Transmission Line theory when a complex audio waveform is riding the line - i.e. when there is simultaneous transmission of thousands of fundamental frequencies and harmonics - and the impedances plus other electrical characteristics on either end are roughly as we know them. Having said that, his patent claims are carefully selected and he leaves potential trade-offs undiscussed; therefore, though those carefully selected claims make sense to me and I defend them, he has not entirely convinced me that his overall problem description and solution check out 100% from a pure scientific standpoint. And I haven't even looked at his "analog jitter" claims.
