Audiophiles should learn from people who created audio

I can hear differences even among cheap cables. When I set up my vintage system recently, using a pair of the original Quad ESLs and a restored pair of Quad II amps with real GEC KT 66s, my plan was no fancy cable. When I originally used the Quads, back in ’73, there was no such thing as fancy cable. So, I bought some decent quality 12 gauge copper stranded cable. It sounded fine. A friend who had more recent experience with the Quad (mine were stored for decades before being restored), suggested the Canare 4S11, which was cheap too (at least by "audiophile" standards of pricing). The Canare was less harsh than the generic 12 gauge copper. I’m not going to fuss over it any more than that, because it is contrary to the spirit of that system.
As for all encompassing views on topics such as wire, digital v analog, tube or solid state or original pressings v remasters, I take it on a case by case basis--my system, my ears, my pocket book. I use high quality audiophile cable in my main system, but it hasn’t really changed for years--when I did studied comparisons in my room, on my gear, I chose the cable that performed the best for me with my components and my sonic preferences. With that settled, I focus on buying records. It’s a whole lot more interesting, opens new avenues of music, history, culture and the personal joy of discovery.

The term of art is " nattering nabobs of negativism."

Years ago we had companies like Western Electric, Bell Labs, RCA and others that invested considerably in R & D. I know some of the high end companies are now owned by large conglomerates, but I doubt research into auditory phenomena is the same today. It seems like much of the innovation is in the hands of smaller shops, cottage industry style or scientists who have migrated from other fields into audio because of their personal interest. Separating the wheat from the chaff isn't possible based on marketing or reviews. The handful of components that are enduring is relatively small. And, interestingly, many rely on modern implementations of  old technologies or are themselves old components.
The notion that science stays in place is, I think, contrary to the very notion of discovery and advancing learning. 

@itzhak1969--I'm pretty firmly rooted in the subjective camp with a healthy respect for science. Could some of the sonic attributes you mention, like brightness and perhaps even sound stage,  be measured  by fourier analysis? I don't know the answer, but it would seem like frequency peaks and dips, and timing in relation to frequency, should tell us something. I'm posing this as a general query-- perhaps this stuff has been measured with no demonstrable difference, although it perceived by listeners. I'm not try to fan any flames, actually trying to bridge the gap. I suppose I could grab someone in the engineering department at UT, but unless an engineer is specialized (or at least interested) in acoustic analysis, I'm not sure they could help.

Geoff- I do have a cheapy loaded on to an iPad. It works with a microphone, either the one built into the iPad-questionable- or an external mic, but it is measuring output of the entire system within the room. What I was thinking about was a lab grade test that, for example, measured the frequency/timing characteristics of wire as electrical impulses- the subject of this thread was that wire is wire. I assume something like that could be hooked up--but also wonder if it is has already been done.