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
Trelja - See my post to tireguy. I am waiting on the delivery of the signal generator.
Jostler3 - you are dragging me off point into an irrelevancy. I am not interested in whose ***** is bigger, just trying to make a simple point that you are failing to comprehend. What kind of scientist are you if you have no powers of observation? I am NOT claiming Nyq'ies maths are wrong. I am NOT claiming that push-pull amps do not show lower measured distortion that single-ended. I am NOT claiming that transistor amps do not have lower measured distortion than valves. What I am saying is that it is notable that most significant scientific breakthroughs in this area in the last 40 to 50 years have seemed to many of us to take us down unmusical paths, and that recently people have appreciated this to the extent that you can put together a system based on the vinyl LP, single-ended valve amplification, and high sensitivity and high impedence speakers that is at least as truthful to the music as any CD, SS amp, inefficient low impedence speaker system. I am a scientist and believe in the scientific method. But it dismays me when scientists have such blind faith in the theories they understand as to deny experienced phenomena - such as Stevenmj's engineer friend who believes all speaker cables sound the same. That is the topic of this thread. My point is that we have seen this closed-minded approach from scientists for years - ie. "digital interconnects cannot sound different". I am suggesting their closed-minded views based on a meagre understanding of what goes on in an audio system are not worth listening to. Their universe is too small a place to have the debate in. Though your ego drives you to prove I am ignorant and you are a scientific guru, and so you have chosen to misinterpret my post to your satisfaction - I do not care. I do not propose to feed your ego any further by continuing to explain my first post to you, or respond to your irrelevant challenges.
Redkiwi: Either you've now stated your position more clearly, or I misunderstood the point you were trying to make earlier (or, probably, a little of both). From my perspective, of course, it's not the scientists who are closed-minded. They'll consider any evidence available. It's the subjectivists who seem closed-minded, because they refuse to consider any evidence that conflicts with their own observations (including, particularly, evidence suggesting that their own observations may be unreliable).
Don't worry stevemj this thread will be going strong when the magizine arives but it may be hard to find my posts because in 3-4 weeks there is likely to be 3000 responses.
Best of luck on your quest for the truth, Tim