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


So, I've done a metric fuckton of research, notwithstanding the clear bias the man who designed and built my Belles has against esoteric cabling.  And here's the conclusion to which I arrived. 

My monoblocks are sitting on top of the speakers.  The distance from the amp to the speaker is barely a foot, which is exactly how long a run of wire I intend to use.  Goal is to minimize the effect the wire has on the sound.  

According to the calculations I've seen and done, the skin effect depth on copper wire at 20Khz is 461 micrometers.  Meaning a 19-gauge copper wire (911 mics diameter) would reduce skin effect to zero.  As in no impact whatsoever on the signal. 
 
Of course, it's actually very difficult to find 19-gauge wire.  18-gauge (1024 mics) is much easier, and the skin effect is near zero, but not quite zero.  Seems to be an acceptable compromise. Could go down to 20-gauge and eliminate skin effect entirely.  If I could find insulated aluminum wire, 18-gauge would eliminate skin effect entirely, because skin effect depth on aluminum at 20khz is 580 mics.  

12 inches of 18-gauge wire produces 0.006 ohms of additional resistance.  20-gauge = 0.01 ohms.  

Frankly, I don't see the value in spending big bucks on esoteric, heavy-gauge wire for this application.  I'd rather make the bigger investment in the 2m runs from the preamp to the blocks, because that's where the wire's going to have a hell of a lot more of an effect on the sound.  

Stepping back to allow you all the opportunity to punch holes in my thought process here. 
jerkface
@jerkface - Unfortunately I do not make cables for others - for various reasons.

But there are members that will

However, the parts are a little expensive + time/effort to build - the price gets up there.

Let me know if interested and I'll put you in touch 

Regards - Steve


Post removed 
@dietch2 - well I’ve just spent the better part of the last 4 years ACTUALLY TRYING all of the things I have mentioned and in that time I have found that EVERY one of the things I mentioned does actually make for a vastly superior cable - regardless of length.

How did I measure all of this - with my ears.

I have tried cables from 12 ft long to 1 ft long and YES the incorporation of the adaptions I suggested made a noticeable improvements, not only in high end gear but budget systems also

MY PROCESS: I would change just one thing each time and make note of my observations.

So I’m not disputing what you say - you seem very educated
- I’m just stating what I have observed to make a noticeable difference

Regards - Steve
Post removed 
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.