Math + Logic + Science = something completely mad...

Its transmission line effects, which don't matter in audio. It is skin effects, which are easily accounted for. It is triboelectric effect which is virtually never an issue in audio. It is E Its transmission line effects, which don't matter in audio. It is skin effects, which are easily accounted for. It is triboelectric effect which is virtually never an issue in audio. It is EMI, not an issue with 12" speaker cables.   MI, not an issue with 12" speaker cables.

 
I had this sneaking suspicion he was trying to mitigate skin effect when he started talking about dielectric.  But I was also trying to be jovial and open-minded when he described all the effort he went through to build these cables. 

@williewonka Literally, at the outset of the discussion, I showed the math regarding 18 and 20-gauge normal speaker cable and the skin effect at 20Khz.  Yet somehow you blew past that.  I don't get why. 

Literally, @williewonka , there's a calculator for skin effect depth out there.  

https://chemandy.com/calculators/skin-effect-calculator.htm

Skin effect at 20Khz on standard copper wire is 461 micrometers.  Which means a standard copper wire with a diameter of 922 micrometers, just short of 1 millimeter, will show zero skin effect.  Nada.  Zilch.  No dielectric needed.  

And then I showed the math on the net resistance of 18-gauge copper on a 12-inch run, which is 0.006 ohms.  

But frankly, I don't see how skin effect on a 1 or 2-foot run of wire is going to make any difference at all in the output signal.  We are talking about a signal velocity approaching the speed of light.  There isn't time in two feet of wire for the difference between HF and LF information to become out of phase at that velocity, even if the wire was 2-gauge battery cable, because comb filtering from phase cancellation doesn't even start happening until you get above the 20ms range.  But I did the math on skin effect for precisely that reason - so that anyone who believed in skin effect could see that, indeed, there would be zero skin effect with minimal additional resistance on the length of wire involved in this deployment if I took the path of small-gauge wire. 

At some point here in the near future, I plan to have a conversation about interconnects, which will be much more in earnest, since the distance increases to 2 meters, and the current, as a line level signal, is FAR lower, which I believe makes it more susceptible to the various and sundry electrical effects we're discussing here.  I'm open to being convinced of otherwise, however.  But I'm a lot more open to a wider variety of solutions to that particular conundrum, and more willing to spend on solutions that make sense.  Operative being "make sense", as in show me the math, show me the science, show me where we are on the perpetually diminishing returns scale, so I can make an intelligent decision about whether it's worth it.  

Pro tip:  You'll be hard-pressed to convince me that it's worth it in the 4-figure range. 

Totally looney to put big amps on speakers.
For all the valid and good reasons stated above.

If space is at such a premium, why not hang the amps on wires from the ceiling so they sit in the air just 1cm above the top of the speaker.


But @jerkface does make one interesting point: " We are talking about a signal velocity approaching the speed of light."

This must be correct.  So how come whatever wire you use can make a big difference to SQ.  Especially for @jerkface who employs extremely short runs.