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
Jostler - the issue for me is that 20 years of experimentation in this hobby tells me the reliance on measurement such as Stevemj suggests above is just ludicrous. I am not saying you should just accept what I say, and only wish to put my view forward. But I don't agree with you that someone expressing their opinions on this forum is adding a lot of value by presenting scientific evidence to support it. For example, I could argue that Cardas cables are the best, and that this is because of the scientific theory that supports the use of insulating every strand and using strands of different thickness. I could equally argue that Harmonic Technology cables are the best because the purity of the copper used is higher than that used by Cardas. Stevemj might argue that they are both the same because his oscilloscope cannot tell the difference between them. All of the above is meaningless while we do not have a unified theory that explains audio. You may think we do have a unified theory and Stevemj may think that the unified theory is utterly encompassed by what he can measure, but my experience leads me to think we do not. So in my opinion, argument based on sub-sets of a unified theory, as in my examples on cables above, cannot tell a complete enough story to support anything at all. More likely they will be used to justify an opinion already held. On one of your other points, we all have expectations before we listen to something, even in a blind test. But with 20 years of trying countless components, cables and tweaks there are too many surprises - sounds heard that do not match the expectations at all - to believe for a moment that it is all imagined. It also tells me that any suggestion that cables all sound the same is just ridiculous. So it is my opinion that the instruments and theories espoused by the nay-sayers are inadequate to the task. How come you have more trust in the existing science than the evidence of your own ears? How does Stevmj know that his instruments are not the audio equivalent of a black and white camera - pretty accurate in many respects, but failing to measure something that is quite important about the real thing ie. color in this analogy. A key difference between you and me is that my experience and my take on that experience says there is more going on than Stevemj is comprehending. So why don't I just leave this issue as a difference of opinion? Why do I feel the need to argue with people like Stevemj? Why do I find it necessary to indulge in this discussion when I do not believe the likes of Stevemj have anything valuable to contribute? I will tell you the answer. It is because I have observed the likes of Stevemj and others of his ilk on this forum and on others, continuously contributing nothing positive at all, and instead apparently getting their jollies by side-tracking debates onto their private agenda to ridicule anything that does not match their belief-set, and to pander to their feeble egos. The beligerent, monotonous rantings that the science they learnt at prep school says something cannot be so is hard to explain any other way. These opinions from the likes of Stevemj are not presented as observations but as condescending jibes at those with other opinions. It is hard to conclude that these people are much more than attention-seeking children unleashed with an adult's rights. It is hard to accept them as scientists when they apparently have minds like steel traps - once they have read a couple of science books, nothing else exists.
On your final point, I think it is the right of any poster to figure out their strategy for discerning which recommendations to take notice of. I think I have explained why I would not rely on a "scientific" explanation as the basis that I use, but understand that is what you wish to do. But I don't think that your arguments warrants the kind of "put up or shut up" attacks that posters get from the "scientists". If we don't put up scientific explanations then you have every right to ignore our opinions, but I object to the ridicule that goes on and cannot believe it is motivated in the way you describe.
Jostler - At the risk of tarnishing your reputation here, I was thinking that I wish I had written your last post.
Funny, there are three or four posts going here, all with Jostler as the minority, I mean alone. Does that mean anything to him? I'm starting to get the feeling we have another one here guys, but hey, some great input on all threads. Thanks Jostler for continuing to live in your little tinny box, it's made for a good read. Have you even looked to see if it has a lid, or is that scientificly impossible?
I warned you. Now we've crossed over. Might as well be rec.audio.opinion or audioreview.