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

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.

Check out the forum thread on  "Audio Engineering Society and cables" from June. There is discussion of peer-reviewed, published research demonstrating that cables that have an identical frequency response can still sound different and can be perceived as sounding significantly different under blinded listening conditions - even by untrained listeners.  

I won’t say there can’t be an audible difference, who knows there still are paramaters in play we didn’t measure (correctly).

There also is this thing though that our ears fool us. Or actually it’s not our ears, they merely are the sensors, the transducers ... the real hearing takes place in our brain. And our brain fools us, greatly. For one, it fills in the gaps, our hearing is trained on how songs and music usually ought to sound, just like we can read a sentence where all vowels are left out prfectly well (w cn rd a sntnc whr ll th vwls r lft t prfctl wll). Our ’hearing’ is also greatly influenced by visuals, and by expectations. Google for the McGurk effect.

So ... yes ... when you just shelled out $4000 for new speaker cables, that look thick and fancy and that have nice gold plated connectors on them (I never use connectors, the less interconnects the better), you WILL here a difference ... just because you just told your brain there SHOULD be a difference.

And of course, if the first listening was a bit disappointing, you now hear a difference after some hours of ’running in’. Because the experts told you they sound better after ’running in’, your brain now expects a difference. Who knows what exactly happens with the molecules and atoms during running in? The interesting notice is statistically there’s a 50% chance they sound worse ... but no, they always sound better!

And of course they again sound better after you placed your cables on the $400 floor spacers to avoid cable vibrations. Ever thought of using $2 kitchen sponges for that?

It all becomes much more difficult with a blind A/B test.

The sound that gets to the brain and is 'heard' is different to that entering the ears.  Because there is a brain in between.  The brain is like an AD converter.  It adds and subtracts artifacts.  Indeed it is much less compliant than an AD converter since it adds emotion (aka placebo effect).  Psycho issues beset those who report differences.

They don't like it but only consistent differences found in double blind ABX tests carry any validity at all.  All other results are nulled by non sound-related brain activity.

Yes @rudyb it does 'all become more difficult in a blind test'.
Many report that emotional and nervous issues reduce their discriminatory ability.  This is just a cover-up because they do not 'hear' the differences in a correctly implemented scientific test.  There should be minimum delay between presentations of A B and X.

I repeat: reports in circumstances where I listen to my system, spend 5 or 10 minutes changing wires, and then listen again 15 minutes later and report differences CARRY NO VALIDITY AT ALL.  

@avitacom vitacom

"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."

Well said.

FWIW:
British Audiophile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Opv0Zx6Mc&t=929s&ab_channel=ABritishAudiophile
Audio Excellence: https://youtu.be/SPBlWgNqK_g?t=620

 
@dynamiclinearity arity

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.

Exactly. The history of science is (when successful) and expanding discovery of what exists. Science presents hypotheses -- this theory is the best explanation (so far) of the phenomena in question (so far) for the purposes defined (so far).

@sdl4  -- Thank you -- I will!