Cables that measure the same but (seem?) to sound different

In the absence of data, as I have described it previously, a lot of verbiage is generated.
sdl4 has posted real, meaningful, data, above, supporting the superiority of Straight Wire Virtuoso Cable, at least over Monster Cable. Now we’re getting somewhere!

Actually all sdl4 posted was spurious data from  someone trying to do research outside their area of expertise. This researcher has been debunked before and had a paper withdrawn when venturing into audiophile mythology. The only thing shown in the paper mentioned is there was a difference heard between sine waves using old equipment and unspecified methodology. 

Apparently, djones51 prefers to post about his own biased opinions rather than to consider the implications of published peer-reviewed research that calls those opinions into question. 

The paper is misleading and a confused mess. For instance it was commented upon already, the post before mine, of the superiority of straight wire over monster. The paper does no such thing it uses 2 different cables through 2 different pathways which were never tested for distortion and noise and concluded the pathways sound different. The subjects were only given 2 choices there should have been a third choice , neither. Tests like this lead the respondents, the methodology is flawed. 

djones51,

I don't agree that this paper is a "confused mess," but it does have both strengths and limitations that must be considered in interpreting the results. I agree that the paper doesn't show that Straight Wire cables are consistently better than Monster cables, but this was not the goal of the study. What it does show is that a moderately expensive balanced cable from Straight Wire sounds different than a less expensive single-ended cable from Monster, when each cable is connected using its intended pathway (i.e., either balanced XLR or single-ended RCA). Because methodological limitations in prior listening studies have made it difficult to identify reliable cable differences, the cables were chosen to be as different as possible to maximize the likelihood of finding a difference during double-blind listening trials. This approach made it impossible to tease out the specific contributions of the cable topology (XLR vs. RCA) from the effects of the cable geometry, conductors, dielectrics, etc. Studies that are designed to test those specific factors should be carried out in the future.

It appears that you believe that the 2-choice stimulus-matching paradigm for the listening trials is too simple and should have employed a third choice as well. However, as the author discusses in the paper, the use of a rapidly changing ABX paradigm (or some other more complex format) is not ideal for listening trials involving musical passages. Using pilot testing with a small group of subjects, he identified problems with rapid stimulus presentations and with more demanding cognitive loads. Keeping the decisions simple and anchored to descriptors was used to maintain the subject's attention and prevent deterioration of performance due to fatigue. Most people who have participated in ABX listening trials know how frustrating it can be to have to juggle the data that go into same-different decisions and then to make rapid sonic judgments, especially when they worry that someone is trying to confuse or fool them by manipulating the way the stimuli are presented. These problems can often lead to reduced attention and performance later in a trial, even when the stimuli are simpler than complex musical passages.