Hype, Hyperbole and high price!

Kenny- leaving aside marketing hyperbole and specious scientific claims, do you acknowledge that you have heard a difference with different cables? I certain have, and am agnostic: my first experience in doing in-depth cable comparisons was done in the late ’80s- using a pair of Quad electrostats, which admittedly have their limitations and quirks but a very revealing midrange. I sat on the floor with about 5 different speaker cables and tried them out over the course of a long weekend. Not much discussion, as I recall, about cable break-in back then. I just installed a cable, listened for a while, then changed it. At some point, I must have done a run-off among a narrower sub-set of the ones I liked best, and frankly cannot even remember which, by brand or price, I preferred.
Fast forward several decades- I’ve tried several different cables in my current system (which I assembled circa 2006-7, with various updates over the past 10 years- but the core of the system has been essentially the same)- vinyl, SET amps, horns. Again, the cables-- this time interconnect and speaker, as well as power, made a difference. What I’m using isn’t the most unobtanium, fanciest or most expensive, but in comparisons in my room, over my equipment, I heard differences. I don’t know that I ever read a white paper about them, or was lured into buying them because of some claims about their sonic properties-- they seem to work well in my system, which can be somewhat unforgiving and is pretty revealing.
As far as value is concerned, I’m not one who chases the "next great thing." My Quad-based system was assembled in in the mid ’70s and with upgrades to the same line of amplification and speaker (Crosby 63 for the original 57 panels, better ARC amps and preamps, etc.), that system remained in place through most of the ’90s.
My horn based system has evolved in similar, long term ownership fashion. So, an investment in a good set of cables that made my system sound more like real music (really a better illusion) made sense to me. Will the cable I use will do the same thing for someone else, with different gear, listening preferences or budget? I have no idea and certainly don’t pretend to stake any absolute ground here-whether the cables, beyond a certain point are acting as filters, or simply better at fending off extraneous noise or interference, perhaps the answer is all of the above. There do seem to be certain preferred "matches" or synergies by people using certain combinations of equipment, and I don’t doubt that, based on their experiences, they have come to conclusions that are subjectively valid. I don’t know if your engineering vantage point goes so far as to say it isn’t valid science if it can’t be measured, but I’m old enough to remember the transition from tube to solid state and certainly from analog to digital, and early efforts on both fronts did not meet the measured science. Today, thankfully, I guess, solid state and digital is far better than at the time of consumer introduction. As to hype, generally, welcome to life. Everybody is selling something, right?

I'm not adding to the pile-on; in fact, I wrote a even tempered post above, with a question to the OP- I'd be interested in an answer since it seems like it got lost in the sniping. 

kenny- I think the reason for the reaction is that most of the people posting here- i can't speak for everyone- are aware of hype in the industry, and cables in particular. But you seemed to be painting with such a broad brush that it wiped over the good, legitimate products and their users. 
I don't get into fights on the Internet- it is more productive to be positive and helpful where I can be, and just ignore the nonsense. But, since you started the thread, and it was provocative, didn't you expect such responses? (You seem like a smart guy).  

grm- don't take any of this personally. Hang in there. 

For what it's worth (perhaps very little), this phenomenon is nothing new, and is not confined to the audio industry. I encounter it daily in my dealing with "customer support" (that's a euphemism), bad service in restaurants and I largely avoid flying, not because of airplanes but because of the whole airport "experience." 
It is also nothing new: Paul Fussell wrote "Bad: The Dumbing of America" at least 25 years ago. He wasn't just picking on Americans- we were on the front end of the large corporate middle finger; as Fussell explained, the difference between the "hype" and the "reality" was growing as indifference, cost cutting and profit drove things. I'm not going all political here--just pointing out that we've been suffering from this for decades. In some cases, you simply can't buy a quality product at any price now- everything is disposable. 
One of the things I like about this industry is that it is still made up of small, "cottage" type manufacturers. And, there's quality out there.
Apologies for rant, but I thought it topical. 
bill hart

knghifi- I didn’t mean it as a blanket indictment ("In some cases...").
And I agree, the commodification of some products, like TV and computers, has increased performance and lowered price. The modest Marantz AV processor in our den outperforms an old Meridian that was state of the art when it was introduced two decades before. But, I replace the outdoor motion sensor spotlight fixtures on our house approximately every two years- I suppose I could go to an industrial prison level lighting system, but when I checked, I couldn’t find much in the average, consumer products realm- all the same, crappy fixtures. Ditto- a lot of clothing, short of really high end or custom stuff- it is badly made and disposable.
Apple, to me, is a prime example of hype v reality. Fashion statement, but I’m tired of the lackluster performance, the fact that the phones tank after 2 years and it really is about constantly upgrading and features I could care less about. I’m not drawing a direct parallel to hi-fi here, but my point about ’cottage industry’ is that you have a choice. In a lot of consumer products, I’m not sure you do. Then again I may just be a victim of fashion. regards,

Uncledemp- your post fascinated me, and after giving it some thought, my response would be something like: 
scientific or engineering training or any form of higher education for that matter, teaches methodology- how to approach an issue and ask the right questions, rather than knowing the answers; 
a lot of audio equipment is following tried and true science or engineering principles with variations and modest "improvements" that may or may not prove to be enduring or universally satisfying;
innovation can come from anywhere- conception and development doesn't necessarily require massive expenditure or white lab coats- but the adoption of new formats requires industry consensus and re-tooling or broader manufacture that does involve clout and buy-in; many of these were utter failures in the marketplace;
Why the divergence between pure science and engineering on the one hand, and the subjective audio experience on the other? It seems to me that we are, all of us, trying to recreate a sensory experience. The engineering and sciences involved are multi-disciplinary: electrical engineering, mechanical engineering and materials science, acoustics and psycho-acoustics, etc. But at the end, there is still a human, making design choices and a human making listening evaluations. 
There are people that say that two channel audio can never recreate the illusion of a musical performance, but that, and some forms of multi-channel sound, seem to be all we have to work with right now. I've always been intrigued by the history of ideas and invention; thus, my peculiar take on your post. Others may have a different view, but in my experience, I have heard very convincing sonic illusions created by the most mundane or antiquated gear or formats, and completely unconvincing (though sometimes impressive) sounds created by the most expensive, elaborate audio systems. I'm discounting source, room and placement, and dialing in or set up as well as the purely subjective aspects of listener preference. Not sure I "answered" your question, but perhaps gave the "why" some context.