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

@snilf  Spot on. The terms "objectivity" and "subjectivity" and the hard dualism dividing mind and world are the root of a lot of mistakes in audio and other areas, but it's no simple matter to unpack and defuse those mistaken summations of what exists. The simplest way for me is to think of everything as process, involved in an interactive (or ecological) system. This way of thinking doesn't get rid of categories like "mind" or "matter" but it converts them into rough placeholders, sticky notes for present purposes but discardable as soon as the purposes of inquiry change.

Where people get lost in the woods is easily seen in this thread. As I mentioned before measurements of equipment can't explain the human perception of music. Think of it as a two systems,  when sound hits the ear our system of perception from ear to brain is in control. We decide what we like and don't,  it's the system of subjective preferences. The system of mechanical reproduction of sound is objective as it's ruled by electricity, mathematics, electronics, circuits etc.. which we construct. Some audiophiles like to merge these two realities as if they're one system. Since we can't  "yet" measure our perceptions then we can't measure our equipment good enough because they don't  always align and obviously our perception system  is better than the mechanical system. Any test these engineers design can't be accurate because the test doesn't always agree with what I believe. Science can measure music reproduction systems better than our ears, they can design tests that tell us if what we hear is a difference in the mechanical system or a preference of our subjective system. There's nothing right or wrong about preferring one cable or speaker, amp, etc.. than another. Claiming that equipment that measures the same doesn't sound the same offering only anecdotes as proof doesn't get us anywhere or teach us anything besides everyone has an opinion.  If done with properly controlled testing then we have something to go on. The only way social constructs work is if we all agree on the rules, natural physical phenomena is oblivious to our rules, under the right conditions electricity will stop your heart whether we believe or not. 

Measurements have little relation to sound quality.

A little while ago I received this direct message from a user who no longer wishes to post on the forum. I wanted to add it to the thread (despite the fact that it paints my question as borne of ignorance -- see: "If the test was not blind it did not happen. Period. Until you are willing to accept this, you are just wasting your and other people's time asking this question.")

He approved of me quoting his direct communication with me. Here it is.

QUESTION: Who would you name as among the most learned people in audio, psychoacoustics, engineering, and psychology who argue for the real differences made by interconnects, etc.?

Literally none who claim that similar measuring speaker cables sound the same are "learned". Anyone with a modicum of real technical knowledge who has also done actual experiments, not the crap that are called experiments, know that two cable that measure the same will sound the same.

If the test was not blind it did not happen. Period. Until you are willing to accept this, you are just wasting your and other people's time asking this question. Let Miller and OregonPapa and others have their delusions.

NO CABLE VENDOR HAS DONE A PUBLIC BLIND TEST EVER WITH SUPER EXPENSIVE WIRE AND COMPETENT WIRE.

NEVER. NOT EVEN ONCE.

If that does not tell you all you need to know, I don't know what will….

I have extensive academic and real world expertise in electronics, signal processing and psychoacoustics. I have many colleagues who are similar. None of the people making these claims are "learned". Paul McGowan is not "learned". Even Nelson Pass is limited to a fairly a narrow area of electronics and his analysis of cables was w.r.t. where significant differences existed in cable parameters. He stays away from the topic for a reason, just like his says competent amps don't need expensive fuses.

@djones51 A good reply and, as usual, I’m learning from your posts. One thing which trips me up on this topic is the presumption that we know completely what to measure *for*. The flaws in human perception, bias, subjective attention, etc. are all really strong indications that the "subjective" assessment is less than perfect. But I cannot see how we can have a proof that the "objective" measurement side can be confident that every thing which can and should be measured is known. We cannot have closure on the objective side because it’s attempting to measure attributes which connect to a subjective-psychological side about which our knowledge is incomplete -- indeed, might never be complete. In this regard, measurement is like map-making. No map is ever complete, because maps are tools meant to serve purposes, and since purposes change and become more complex, maps, too, change.