Speaker wire is it science or psychology

Requiescat in pace. This has become audio's version of The
Hundred Years War. There's been very little light but a whole lot of heat generated. (Time to look at some other topics, eh?)

Sean

Good note! Agree that there are differences, though they may
be hard to quantify. I'm of the "diminishing returns" school about wires, just as everything else in audio. Are there differences? Yes. Am I willing to pay some preposterous prices to own the esoteric? Nope, can't afford it. But that doesn't mean I can't hear them, and I certainly don't begrudge anyone who has the wherewithal to avail himself of it. I've assembled a very nice system without spending the GNP of a small nation. Do I call it SOTA? No. But it will not embarrass me, and it will extract just about everything on vinyl or other sources that is there to be extracted.

As an aside to "Tireguy"... loved that simile of "like talking to a roof shingle". Gave me a good laugh.

Anyone who wants to plumb the science might want to take a look at Harmonic Tech's web page and read their arguments.

Finally, why do these debates invariably end in the ad hominem attacks? Guys, just agree to disagree. ( Saw on another post someone who took a shot at Bryston. I could fire back and tell him this or that. Pointless. If he hears "bright" so be it. There are a whole lot of other people who disagree, all of whom have perfectly functioning hearing.) Why argue perceptions? I find Krell to be "tipped up", but also understand that for many it's musical Nirvana. It's not my place to criticize that, merely to state my opinion and move on. Krell is excellent gear. I just don't care for it. That's opinion and perception, nothing more. Seems to me ICs and speaker cables fall into the same category.

Redkiwi,

I've just read your post and have found your argument persuasive. Since you've stated you are a scientist, it's tacitly understood you are a proponent of measurements and repeatability. That notwithstanding, you've also expressed a willingness to trust the sensory apparatus you've been endowed with ( your ears ) even when the graphs and meters are sending conflicting messages. That is what any advocate of the scientific method should practice - an open mind and a willingness (nay, eagerness) to look at things even when you haven't yet found the way to quantify them. That may come someday. To dismiss things out of hand when the meters or the instruments can't measure them is not good science.
There is still a staggering amount of research to be conducted before anyone can say with definitive proof that how people perceive sound and especially music has been mapped, tested and catalogued.

Isn't there an old tale, perhaps apocryphal, of the aerodynamic engineer who proved on paper that a bumblebee can't fly? His proof was replete with equations and techno stuff, all seemingly compelling. However, the bee, being the illiterate creature it is, still kept on flying.

I don't share your aversion to SS amps but do understand how you can prefer "valves". (I find tube amps a bit, shall we say, generous in what they do to certain parts of the audible spectrum.) Some folks just perceive things differently. Witness the Krell vs Levinson thread elsewhere here to get an idea of the intensity with which people hold convictions. BTW, how are things in New Zealand? (Guessing that you're such, based on your nom de plume.)