When a reliably observable phenomenon can't be explained within the boundaries of existing paradigm, what would a wise person do? Change the paradigm!
Cables in audio is one example. People do hear the differences. Yet the cables electrical parameters measure too close to each other for the cables to be distinguishable in the predominant flavor of the objectivist paradigms.
What is that paradigm? Measuring a cable for a short time with small audio range signals on a test bench, in isolation from the locations and systems where the differences were heard, is sufficient for establishing whether there is really a noticeable difference.
One of the ways of changing a parading is expansion of consideration scope. For instance, a cable at a location and in a system is not only an ideal isolated wire in a vacuum, but also a radio frequency (RF) antenna and a heat dissipation device.
As a radio frequency antenna, a cable can pick up RF transmissions, which active elements in connected audio devices may convert into audible signals. Not theoretical at all: I've observed this happening, multiple times.
As a heat dissipation device, a cable can cool off speaker crossover elements, speaker transducers coils, amplifier transistors, and so on. In practical speakers, thin copper wire may increase its resistance up to 40% due to heating.
So, a thin, poorly shielded cable with poorly fitting connectors may pick up RF energy to a significantly higher degree, while absorb and dissipate heat significantly less effectively than a more substantially made cable.
That's just one example. There are many others in audio. Sometimes communities of people get charmed by too simple of a model, easy to understand and apply, yet not providing enough of practically necessary subtlety.