Speaker wire is it science or psychology

Stevemj, I prefer a sound that is closer to what I hear at live events. As it happens, I have so far needed valve amplification (but not necessarily single-ended), and good cables (amongst other things your engineer mate (and my engineer mates too) would laugh at) to get that. Whether these items are preserving something that solid state and standard cables do not, or whether they are adding an artificial version is a matter of opinion. But the acid test is our ears (and perhaps our souls), not the test instruments that you apparently believe in. If my system was adding distortions then I would presumably hear it as a persistent coloration. I can tell you I abhor persistent colorations as they irritate me intensely over time, and therefore reduce my enjoyment of the music. But the distortions introduced by solid state (excepting a few hideously expensive products) and by bad cables are observed by me as persistent and highly unmusical. So in my version of reality, it is my dislike of the distortions introduced by solid state and bad cables that are the reason why I prefer valves and good cables. Your suggestion that it might be the reverse suggests an unwarranted faith in the measurement tools in common use. Just to add a caveat, I am not a rampant valve nut, I have never been happy with any valve preamp I have heard, but just do not get on with solid state power amps. So here's the point Stevemj, try listening with your soul (to the music and how it moves you) with some different cables. Since this is the objective (ie. the effect of music on your soul), why accept the opinion of your engineer mate when you can hear the real deal for yourself. I am sure the science helps someone designing gear (but as stated above, it may hinder as well). But, if you are like me and the issue is selecting what to buy, put all the scientific claims to one side, and just listen. Your experience may be different from mine, but I have found the scientific claims (not just from the manufacturer, but also from the engineer mates) have little, if any, correlation with what works. This must frustrate those that would prefer to talk about the science behind the equipment rather than the music experience, but count me out of that pointless exercise.

Excellant post Red, I hope steve is able to hear you. It might be better if you sent it via moris code, then his insturments would tell him what you said.

Red, I've been following the above arguments for quite a while now and I am clearly on your side of the fence. In reading the above threads I began to wonder, if any member of the "honorable opposition" ever went to live concerts REGULARLY. But then, as you suggest, they are probably mainly concerned with the science behind the equipment,less with the musical event as such. They deride us as believers and do not see, that it is they who are also caught in beliefs, beliefs in a model of the world, which they mistakingly take for the world itself. They may be bright, well trained and knowledgeable, but as far as I can see, they seem to care little about epistemology and the inherent limits to anything we know. This is probably, why the "twain will never meet". Since we on our side of the fence seem rather on a quest for a musical experience, which would come as close as possible to that elusive goal of the "absolute sound", we are always on unsure ground in as far, as that we inherently will feel, what sounds right and what not, but we will never be able to "prove" this to a critical mind, who wants facts, which would fit into a MODEL of reality. ( That in many aspects this model is real enough, is obvious, without it we could not even switch on our systems, if there were any at all)But his model falls short of all possible experience. Its just a model not the world. We also have a model, which paradoxically is as subjective (none of us hears probably absolutely alike, both in measurable, as in qualitative terms) as it is psychologically objective ( the inner quest for that elusive absolute, which we all share ). To sit in the middle of a paradox is generally a painful experience, for how will you know what is "real" and what is "imagined." On the other hand, this dilemma will keep you aurally on your toes. It hones your listening acuity, trapped between the drive for "better sound" and the flints of doubt. Our often feeble attempts to translate what we expierience into "science", must sound to a trained scientific mind like the phantasmas of the Alchemists to post-Newtonian physics. And yet, if you remove the materialistic trappings from that, what the Alchemists were after, their efforts made sense in a spritial-transcendental way. To me here lies the hint of a parallel to what we are after. The Alchemist's substrate were base materials, and they of course knew nothing of the real chemical, physical changes they effected in their retorts. They developed a highly complex descriptive terminology to what they percieved, which sounds like ghibberish to modern science. Their actual goal, apart from those charlatans, who pretended to make gold from crap, seems to have been rather the quest for an elusive absolute, like in that lovely Zen story of the Ox and the Herdsman, where the quest is more important than the goal. We are on home ground here, deeply paradoxical indeed, because without that elusive goal, there would be no quest. We are like that famous donkey, with a carrot dangling in front of its nose. We'll never get it, but we are on the move. I prefer that state to that which identifies with whatever system, in order to have a nice warm place "behind the stove".

Redkiwi,

I've just read your post and have found your argument persuasive. Since you've stated you are a scientist, it's tacitly understood you are a proponent of measurements and repeatability. That notwithstanding, you've also expressed a willingness to trust the sensory apparatus you've been endowed with ( your ears ) even when the graphs and meters are sending conflicting messages. That is what any advocate of the scientific method should practice - an open mind and a willingness (nay, eagerness) to look at things even when you haven't yet found the way to quantify them. That may come someday. To dismiss things out of hand when the meters or the instruments can't measure them is not good science.
There is still a staggering amount of research to be conducted before anyone can say with definitive proof that how people perceive sound and especially music has been mapped, tested and catalogued.

Isn't there an old tale, perhaps apocryphal, of the aerodynamic engineer who proved on paper that a bumblebee can't fly? His proof was replete with equations and techno stuff, all seemingly compelling. However, the bee, being the illiterate creature it is, still kept on flying.

I don't share your aversion to SS amps but do understand how you can prefer "valves". (I find tube amps a bit, shall we say, generous in what they do to certain parts of the audible spectrum.) Some folks just perceive things differently. Witness the Krell vs Levinson thread elsewhere here to get an idea of the intensity with which people hold convictions. BTW, how are things in New Zealand? (Guessing that you're such, based on your nom de plume.)

Redkiwi, Jadem6, nicely done.

When I compare wires, I notice sometimes that although I cant articulate a reason, I prefer one over another. That is to say, I dont decide, this one is best, I just enjoy whatever Im listening to more so that I forget to stop after the short selection that Im using for the comparison and let the piece play all the way through. Now, if you have 2 wires, and with one you have no trouble cutting songs short to analyze the effect of the wire, but with the other you cant stand to interrupt a song you like, isnt that a very good reason to prefer one over the other?

And who cares how they measure?