DO CABLES REALLY MATTER?

geoffkait"Blind testing is actually not (rpt not) an indisputable tool of science or the scientific method."

This is verifiably false and in fact blind testing is an important, essential and practical tool for use by scientists and researchers HOWEVER and this may be the point you are trying to make it is not useful as a casual, uncontrolled, indiscriminant protocol by those untrained in their design, implementation and analysis as shown above by user "prof" who thinks drug testing in scientific studies does not measure the use of the drug itself or it's interaction, result or influence on the patient but actually is a tool used by scientists to judge the patient themself! This type of misunderstanding, misinformation and confusion is unfortunate for all concerned because it conceals, confounds or obscures the value of such testing when organized, conducted, and administered with those trained in their use, interpretation and application. Most of the participants here do not have the skill, knowledge or ability to properly even discuss such tests and so it is not unreasonable or illogical for those hear to dismiss their use as an audio evaluation tool when not properly controlled such blind testing has no more validity, worth or application than any other non-scientific test, which raises doubts as to whether such blind tests are worth the effort when much simpler tests can be used and suffer no greater tendency towards false results than the improper "scientific" test.

calvinj"No not outside my interest as far as debating is concerned. I’ve read your viewpoint. Your several viewpoints actually. They are long and winding."

Well there really is nothing to significantly further assess, analyze or debate because the science in this matter has already been substantially established, reviewed and evaluated and there are actual links already provided in this thread that show even under rigorously designed, conducted and multiple double blind scientific tests that at least some listeners can reliably and repeatedly distinguish audible differences between cables. There are several participants in this thread who have clearly demonstrated that there interest in this topic is to challenge, argue and dispute these results but there is nothing further that can positively result from engaging these people because there interests are confined and limited to argumentation and posturing conducted under a cloak of science that careful examination reveals to be misapplied, misinformed, misunderstood and corrupted it is senseless and futile to invoke reason, science and the scientific method to refute, deny and obfuscate the previously established audible differences between some cables. Just as their are people who insist that the Earth is flat there are those who for purposes of they're own amusement, entertainment and unending delight come hear to "upset the applecart" as Americans say and lay claim to special knowledge, understanding, or insight that produces results and conclusions that conflict with that which has already been established.

glupson"$500 is plenty for a wire with two connectors when functionally similar, if not same, can be had for $10-20-30. Most of the people with decent income would agree to that, raising a question if sonic quality gain is worth the difference in price. That is not to say there is no place for pricier cables under the sun, but that $500 is not cheap"

$500USD is indeed relatively cheap for wire primarily intended for high performance audio purposes that would include connectors and you're statement that most people would agree with you is without doubt a reflection of your circle of acquaintances which is not typical or representative of the  universe of audiophiles in general and I have never seen $10 wire and connectors that are the practical, functional and equivalent performance, quality, and specification of more proper audio cables so you are clouded by your lack of experience, knowledge, and familiarity with the topic under discussion here.