Speaker wire is it science or psychology

I have tried several different cables and used my wife as a guinea pig. She has definitely noticed differences between the three I tried. I tried some old 12 gauge stranded zip cord, some Kimber 4TC and Analysis plus oval. All were matched using a Rat Shack SPL meter that I had calibrated vs my B&K meter that we use at work for accoustic measurements (truck drive by testing). To match levels I used the 1000 Hz test tone on Stereophile's test disc 3.

Components used:
Sony CD/DVD
Lexicon DC2 pre/proc
Adcom 7400 amp
Dynaudio Contour 1.8 MKII
Line length is aout 16ft per side as I had to run the cables through floor and out under speaker to make the room "look nice" The Dyn cherry veneer has a very nice acceptance factor however.

I really liked the Kimber 4TC at first, it seemed to greatly improve imagingand I heard more detail in the music, but after a while it sounded a little bright. I had set up my speakers and a little light room treatment (plants, wall hangings, and big honking pillows) using the Bass/Midrange and Treble decade signals on the stereophile disc using my zip cord. After listening to the 4TC for a while I got suspicious. I remeasured the response and found a +2 to 3 db increase at around 1.5 to 4.5 kHz and a lesser increase out to 10k where the Rat Shack meter rolls off. I concluded that that is why the cable sounded different and better for a while.

I later tried the Analysis Plus oval, and it had a slightly less "etched" sound than the kimber and was not as fatiguing, but it had good imaging and I heard very good detail. On checking the spectrum, it was much flatter in the 1.5 to 4.5kHz range, and flattened the lower midrange a smidge.

I am very happy with these cables, and I still am happy with the Kimbers for my surround speakers, as my system does double duty for HT occasionally.

I would like to see more measurements using a Network analyzer, such as HP makes. I have used one in the past while building capacitive clearance probes, and it sweeps a network and displays a Bode plot of the LRC network attached. Insulators and wire configuration made a difference, but back then I was a poor junior engineer and couldn't afford speaker cable.

To conclude after a regrettably long winded response. Yes it is in our heads, but yes there is a measurable difference.

As we say in test and measurement, "Your results may vary"

It takes time to acclimate ones' self with the sonic attributes of a system. Some differences are very subtle at best while others can be quite noticeable. Sticking someone into a room with an unknown quantity and then asking them to identify which is which is not a very accurate way to decipher if there is a subtle difference. It would be like asking someone to identify identical twins. While someone that was not familiar with them might not have a clue, those that are FAMILIAR with them would probably be able to identify them without a problem. It is the same with a well tuned and familiar audio system and specific passages of music. There are subtle "hints" that would and will give things away. IF the listener pays attention.

As to blind testing and ABX'ing, you guys keep forgetting about Moncrieff from IAR. He was able to verify whether there was or wasn't an "approved" ABX switchbox installed in the system, let alone wire or component changes. He did this with outside witnesses and had a 100% accuracy rate. While i'm not saying that i or anyone else could duplicate those listening feats, it obviously shows that it can be done.

By the way, the guy that built and designed the first ABX test box and started all of the hoopla is the guy that built and designed some of my preamps. His name is David Spiegel for the record. He now designs safety and security systems for monitoring Nuclear Power Plants.

I found the story about the RIAA circuit quite amusing. It sounds like gibberish, but it was quite amusing. I don't know of any design engineer that would work like that and keep his job in ANY field. Designing a component and then voicing it are different things. Trying to do both at the same time would typically result in an utter mess or take far too long to make the results worthwhile.

Do the test that i gave you with 18 gauge zip cord and 12 gauge zip. Put two speakers next to each other and place the system into mono mode using a reference quality recording for the source material. This will feed identical signals to the two speakers. Then swing your balance between the two speakers and tell me that there are NO sonic differences. A better method is to use an a-b switchbox so that you don't have the volume change as you rotate the balance, but not everyone has this capability. Don't bother wasting our time if YOU are not willing to back up your assertions. Why should we go out of our way to respond to your "troll" when you won't even investigate something with an open mind to begin with? If you think that your response is "psychologically tainted" because you know which wire is where, hide them as best as possible and ask your wife or one of your buddies that does not have a clue if they hear a difference. Tell them to be as specific as they can in terms of describing the differences IF there are any. Since you are the skeptic, i don't think that we have to worry about your placing preconcieved notions in their heads. Report back with the results and we can go from there.... Sean
>

Jeez, just find a way to listen to some different cables, decide what pulls your chain and enjoy the music! Who cares about the 'science'?

Jpharris's post raises an interesting question: If you can measure a difference in frequency response (hard to imagine how wire could impart such a large boost to any part of the frequency range) but you can't tell the difference in listening double blind like stevem (or is it Arnold or mtry??) says, which is right?

I take no position on this matter. I believe all you wires is wires guys when you tell me there is no reason why any 2 wires should sound different and I take it on faith that I am delusional when I hear differences. I am especially mad (i.e., loony) because the differences I hear have almost no correlation with price. I like some cheaper stuff better than some expensive stuff.

But the differences I hear are not so much in tonality, except at the extremes (w/re frequency and design), but in midrange clarity, imaging and sibilance.

This thread hasnt become abusive yet, but I hope it doesnt go the way of the cable forum on Audioreview.com or the cable talk threads on rec.audio.opinion (not defunct, just useless).

I think you neglected to read my post, if you think there has been no evidence to prove to you that different cables sound different. If you do not take my word for it, I will provide you with the "scientific proof" you so desire. I have an article where about 10 cables were tested. The test consisted of a musical signal being passed through a meter(ocsilloscope? - it's been a while since I read the article, but you best believe I can dig it up). The signal was plotted at various points in the audio spectrum. The signal was passed through using each cable involved in the test. THERE WERE MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN THE SIGNAL WITH EVERY CABLE INVOLVED. None of them did as well as we would hope. But, if that isn't scientific proof that wire is fact, not psychology, then it is a good thing you are not a scientist.