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
Detlof: "I began to wonder, if any member of the 'honorable opposition' ever went to live concerts" is what is known as an ad hominem attack. It's also quite false. The last time I went to Carnegie Hall, I didn't hear any of the effects of out-of-phase rumble, nor did I notice an excessive amount of inner groove distortion. Those two effects, among others, are endemic to vinyl reproduction. By the way, they are not endemic to analog, since they aren't evident on analog master tapes. That's why it's known as distortion. Some audiophiles may like the sound of that distortion, just as they may like the way a SET amp clips or the way a cable rolls off the high end. But that's not because it's "closer to real music." It's just closer to what you like. And it's perfectly okay to like it (hell, I like some of it myself), but let's not make of it more than it is.
Jostler, apaologies, I did not mean to be offensive, I wondered that was all and I was proved to be wrong. Besides often enough you seem not to mince words either, remember those clicking of heels to consequently hear better. Mind you, that was witty, but not without its own mischief. I can live very well with the rest of your above post, in fact I liked it, as you can see.
It seems to me that we are all scientists in our different approaches. We observe, and we theorise, we test our theories, in order to achieve something. But I sometimes wonder if we are trying to achieve the same thing. It seems that some wish to just prove they are erudite, or that their beliefs are irrefutable. What I see happening is this: I report that I hear differences between something eg. cables, or that I find this valve amplifier sounds more like the real thing than that SS amplifier. This is my observation, I use this forum to share it and to benefit from the observations that others report. I am interested in those reports that are different from my own experience, because it causes me to listen again. I have my own theories, but keep the theorising alive because I believe there is still much to be learnt (is that not the essence of a scientist?). I am comfortable with this. But then I see posters that do not report their observations, they report their beliefs, and then claim the scientific high ground - eg. "I know lots of audio engineers and they tell me that cables are BS - so you are a poor sad fool that is being repeatedly fleeced by the marketers." So how am I meant to interpret this? Let's consider three plausible possibilities. The first is to assume that this is the sort of scientist that wishes to ridicule others' reported observations, rather than report their own. The second is that these scientists have found a theory that fits all the facts - just by adding one more theory to the existing scientific knowledge ie. that anything not explained by existing theory and measurement is delusion. How convenient - we can wrap up the whole audio science into a neat little parcel and then condescendingly dump it on the audio forums on the net. So this is the sort of scientist that is very uncomfortable with anything that cannot be explained by existing theory, and cannot bear the thought that this might mean that existing theory is flawed or inadequate. Therefore reported experiences that do not fit their belief have to be ridiculed, lest the unthinkable becomes plausible. The third possibility is that these posters are so sure of their beliefs that they altruistically wish to save me from the horrendous costs of my delusions. Being quite so sure about a subject like audio does not fit terribly well with my concept of science, but if I were to be charitable and assume the last of the three is true, then my answer is simply "thanks, but no thanks - your theories do not explain my reality, and so they are inadequate for me - and I do not share your need for an argument over existing scientific theory". But, in any case, my money is on number 2, with number 1 a close second and number 3 a distant last.
Adamanteus - because we export a lot of meat and we are one of a diminishing number of countries that have healthy livestock, we are doing just fine right now - thanks for asking. But in the longer term it is difficult to see how a tiny isolated country like ours can keep its best talent at home. It is hard to see how we can progress beyond being a big farm and a tourist spot. On the bright side we are clean, green and healthy - and the power supply to the stereo is pretty unpolluted too. Shame about the scarcity of high-end audio gear and our lower disposable incomes.