Audible differences between speaker cables?

Ljgj brings up a good point that I have thought about quite a bit: "we worry about the speaker cables but not much is said about all the wire used inside the equipment before it".

Indeed, the "speaker wire" in most speakers (most have wire from binding posts to crossover, then crossover to drivers), is not very impressive. However, I am of the opinion that a high end speaker is a complete and fine tuned system, where the designer/design has accounted for every piece inside. It is now a "closed system", so whether it uses silver or copper wires for example, is almost irrelevant because the end result has accounted for it. On the other hand, the cables we are talking about here, are cables that are not only "outside" of the speaker system, but also connecting another "closed system" on the other end - the amp. So the cables I buy are more a matter of _mating_ the two closed systems, to produce a result that is pleasing to me. Thus I find that "good" speaker cables improve or hurt the sound of a system, almost regardless of the quality of the parts inside the speaker or amp.

Also, I do agree with some of the others' comments about interconnects making a bigger difference in general than speaker cable.

In answer to the original question then, the audible differences in speaker cable I have found are:
EVERYTHING.

Bass - it's speed, attack, decay, quantity
Mids - clarity, sharpness, space, presence
Highs- crispness, space, air, sibilence.

All of these have been effected in my playing with speaker wires. So, I think the question is more of how to define the differences, than a question of "if and what".

I will wax philosophic here and offer that cables do make a difference (as does everything in a stereo system), but not nearly as much as many people claim. I have no data to back that up, but do keep in mind the evaluators, humans, are the same species who produce wine tasters who line up to a row of identical glasses of wine and swear by their heirarchical ratings of their quality.

While better cables are improving some people's systems for sure, there are hosts of others claiming improvements who I'm sure are really noticing different speaker placement, room dynamics, or a phenomenon similar to the above-mentioned wine tasters.

How many stereophiles are willing to submit themselves to blind tests, whereby they are blindfolded and attempt to pick out whether a cable has been swapped out for a better one or merely left alone to trick him?

All that being said, I ponied up for about $200 in Kimber 4TC to biwire my new speakers to my 70 Watt Denon receiver. I can't be positive of the sound difference that I think is there over the previously existing monster cable, but I sure like knowing that 4TC is back there. :)

Everyones hearing is different, so maybe the folks who can't tell a difference between cables, just don't have great hearing.

Sugarbrie, I have auditioned and rejected cables in my home because I thought they sounded different from other acceptable cables. But I continue to believe that the differences between competently designed cables (and that's most of them) are trivial. Someone just asked me to consider that the great stereo recordings of the 50's
were made with perfectly ordinary wire. Of course, most recording engineers still use ordinary wire. If ordinary wire damages the original signal, just how does expensive hifi wire repair the signal? (paraphrased without attribution because no permission - and for those who do know the source please keep it to yourselves)

Two continuing arguments made by the wire is wire crowd are that (1) speakers are internally wired with ordinary wire and (2) recording engineers use ordinary wire. I just don't know what to say to either argument.

All I know is that my friends and I definately heard a large improvement (lifting of veils sort of thing) when I switched my Kimber PBJ out with Music Metre Silvers. Blindfold me. Switch between the two. I can tell every time.
Audiophile9 - Great post.