So you think wire conductors in cables are directional? Think again...

Look at all that chest puffing, but not an argument among the four of you. That is rather telling.

If current day scientific knowledge explains everything about sound reproduction, why do the self professed "engineers" have the very worst sounding systems? 

By 1945, our knowledge was doubling every 25 years. Today it's estimated to be doubling at around 18 months or less. If there is anything that we can be totally assured of, is that each and every so called scientific law know to man, will be proven false or woefully inadequate some time in the future. 

If you trust a measurement over your own ears, you are not terribly smart.

Note. I have not personally heard a difference in direction of a cable, but I have no reason to doubt those who claim they have. Science most certainly does not prove them wrong. 

Today it's estimated to be doubling at around 18 months or less. 

****************
This is what happens when people take information out of context and equate it with general knowledge. Did you know that this was also said, "According to IBM, the build out of  the “internet of things” will lead to the doubling of knowledge every 12 hours."   

Knowledge in this sense simply means recorded information. I am increasing it by typing this statement.

I could just as soon argue that the specific knowledge of controlled listening testing of cables using scientific methods is doubling at a rate of once every 10 years. It takes specific actions to occur for specific knowledge to increase.

If you trust your own brain, in a sited listening test, even though physics tells you that what you perceive you are hearing is impossible, then you a self deluded, whether intelligent or not. If further measurements validates the physics and you still are trusting your perception, then are you an audiophile?

You are never trusting your ears, you are trusting your perception. There is a big difference between the two.

What is hearing but perception?

One side cant prove its point because there is no consensus on the validity of measurement. In fact there is no consensus on what you should measure. 

The other side, which I support, cant prove anything either due to the significance of the individual experience. Difference is that we are not telling you to stop measuring and to migrate to our camp. Fact is we dont care which puts us in a much more enviable position.

Just dont tell us what we hear and attribute it to soft science. Also dont tell us that there is no variability in the ability to hear.

Look at all that chest puffing, but not an argument among the four of you. That is rather telling.

Hm... interesting.  Any data from you yet?

By the way, equations are not data.