Cables that measure the same but (seem?) to sound different

@artemus_5 

What I find interesting in your post, if I am understanding you correctly, is that you acknowledge that things that measure the same would sound the same to a calibrated robot, but not to humans because we are not calibrated.  It seems that what you're saying is that things that measure the same don't necessarily sound the same because of external forces that apply to humans.  There's a big difference between thing sounding the same and humans not being able to hear them consistently.  Our inability to hear things the same doesn't means that the sound coming out of the speakers isn't the same.  Room acoustics are very dynamic and shifting the position of your ears will result in a different listening experience, so you'd have to be able to consistently differentiate between the expected differences in listening experiences from the unavoidable forces and what might be there from whatever physical change was made to the system.

I'm almost certain that I've heard Paul from PS Audio say that he's heard differences in speaker wires that were clear, but not in interconnects.  I find this statement quite curious as their website includes "Paul's Picks" that include increasingly expensive interconnects to match the price point of the gear in the package.  What criteria did he use to pick them?  The most likely scenario is that they are just using his name.

I think that it's entirely possible that things like cables and such can make a difference in a system of high enough quality, but I've not personally had the opportunity to be convinced.  

I hesitate to wander into this treacherous country again but here goes.  Measurements, e.g., resistance, inductance, capacitance, are, these days, easily made , recorded and compared but are gross and crude compared to the kinds of phenomena which may be discerned by the human ear and brain such as, say, timbre.  The simple measurements aren’t going to help us predict how a device (cable) will contribute to SQ.  So the only practical way I can think of in measuring the higher phenomena for comparison purposes is to recruit panels of experienced observers (listeners/audiophiles).  Ideally, if possible, observers would be blind and a placebo control could be utilized if a certain device (cheap cable?) could be agreed upon as the placebo type.  Hasn’t this kind of evaluation been done before in audio?

If you believe in science(and I do) then if two items measure the same, they are the same. But that assumes you have measured everything that matters. And you don't know if some factor is missing from your measurements until you discover all the measurements. We usually discover new measurements when our observations are no longer predictable by our current measurements.

@denverfred,

Exactomundo 😎
I just finished rereading Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. 
This is not to say that people who like particular cable more than another or deluded.

From OP:

     “if two wires measure the same, in a stable acoustic environment, they must sound the same.”

I do not have an answer to OP’s specific question about which specific  “learned people” in the field may have opinions about interconnects and wires.

I would like to broaden the discussion a bit to include some additional thoughts about measurements, tests and the equipment and persons that determine whether or not differences are heard.

OP does not specify what is being measured, how it is measured, what tools are used to capture the measurement or what the conditions for the test are.  We have precious little to go on for a discussion. 
Assume the stated stable acoustic environment and several devices under test.   We need calibrated test equipment.  Both electronic and human.  Obtaining calibrated test electronics and software is relatively simple.    Choose a test microphone and associated acoustic test software and interface.  Calibrating a human to be a test instrument comes with many unknowns and variables. 
Perhaps a possible test of human hearing acuity and accuracy vs electronic test equipment would be in order.   Play back whatever test signals and program material desired.  Have the listener evaluate and note their impressions.  Capture measurements with the test equipment at the same time. Alter the test signals and program material in a known way.  Repeat the playback and capture measurements and the human impressions of the test signals and program material.  Continue this for many variations of the test signals and program material.  Alterations in the signals can be anything, overall level, frequency response, distortions, latency changes between different frequency bands, pick your alteration and  test it.

This  testing regimen will allow easy evaluation of both the electronic test equipments accuracy and a humans ability to evaluate changes.  
It would be interesting to see what if any differences there are between the electronic tests and a humans impression  of the test signals and program material original test and the altered signal tests.

Once we have a very good understanding of how electronic test equipment and human evaluations of tests correlate only then should we move on to actually testing those different wires and interconnects.