Speaker wire is it science or psychology


I have had the pleasure of working with several audio design engineers. Audio has been both a hobby and occupation for them. I know the engineer that taught Bob Carver how a transistor works. He keeps a file on silly HiFi fads. He like my other friends considers exotic speaker wire to be non-sense. What do you think? Does anyone have any nummeric or even theoretical information that defends the position that speaker wires sound different? I'm talking real science not just saying buzz words like dialectric, skin effect capacitance or inductance.
stevemj
Interesting post....but not intended to discover whether there are any differences in speaker cable, merely to discover how defensive the commentary would be. Perhaps the poster is a marketer of cables....your comments provide some of the buzz words that are useful for ad copy. The supposed features and benefits advertised will attract you, and you will tend to defend your purchase, using the reasoning in this thread, regardless of the qualities of the cable.
This thread reminds me of the debates (turned ugly) from years ago on the defunct Daja News Opinion
Sean

Good note! Agree that there are differences, though they may
be hard to quantify. I'm of the "diminishing returns" school about wires, just as everything else in audio. Are there differences? Yes. Am I willing to pay some preposterous prices to own the esoteric? Nope, can't afford it. But that doesn't mean I can't hear them, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone who has the wherewithal to avail himself of it. I've assembled a very nice system without spending the GNP of a small nation. Do I call it SOTA? No. But it will not embarrass me, and it will extract just about everything on vinyl or other sources that is there to be extracted.

As an aside to "Tireguy"... loved that simile of "like talking to a roof shingle". Gave me a good laugh.

Anyone who wants to plumb the science might want to take a look at Harmonic Tech's web page and read their arguments.

Finally, why do these debates invariably end in the ad hominem attacks? Guys, just agree to disagree. ( Saw on another post someone who took a shot at Bryston. I could fire back and tell him this or that. Pointless. If he hears "bright" so be it. There are a whole lot of other people who disagree, all of whom have perfectly functioning hearing.) Why argue perceptions? I find Krell to be "tipped up", but also understand that for many it's musical Nirvana. It's not my place to criticize that, merely to state my opinion and move on. Krell is excellent gear. I just don't care for it. That's opinion and perception, nothing more. Seems to me ICs and speaker cables fall into the same category.
I am always cynical. But 10 years ago I changed cables,
I was impressed, tighter bass, a layer or two of transparency, and the highs a little less grainy. Now whether $10,000 cables/interconnects vs $1000 are better, I
don't know but I think I would whether spend the difference
on something else. That is about 700 CDs. I could buy
every Schubert, Brahms, and Webern CD produced.
Steve, I recently initiated a post on blind listening tests and received a number of negative posts. In the end, it is difficult to argue with people whose only response is "there must be a difference because I hear a difference". I would bet large somes of $$ that the majority of audiophiles could not hear a difference between cables in a blind testing scenario. I also believe a similar result would occur if you put say Rotel type electronics in a Mark Levinson box. I find it easier to believe in the tooth fairy than to believe that most audiophiles can hear what they claim to hear!!