I see the issue with ABX blind testing

Professional musicians can easily identify differences between the sound of different violins but they’re not trained to identify differences between cables. It takes commitment, years of swapping components, cables and working on room acoustics to dial your system in and train your ears in the process to get all pieces of the puzzle to the level where differences between components and cables are easily discernible. Exposure to live music is priceless to build a reference (not talking about a Metallica concert here which is nearly impossible to replicate at home). Once it all comes together, add the recording quality to this equation and when all stars align you can, if you have the ears to do so, not only identify differences between cables, but also identify the differences between a Strad and a Guarneri, a Yamaha and a Steinway or a Kawai. It’s not impossible in a context of a properly set up system and room with trained and capable hearing listening to a high quality recording.
We can all argue this until we’re blue in the face. Facts are facts. Measurements is just a part of it all. It isn’t everything.

It pass my mind why people argue with no understanding of psychoacoustics where any kind of parameters and measurement ( musical, acoustical physiological, mechanical or electrical measures are subordinated to subjective guinea pigs voluntary listeners perceptive evaluation from all background) are correlated to subjective impressions collected by sampling them on a given population and studied statistically .

Cables; be it for objective measurement crowd with their obsession with mere electrical measurements or be it for the other crowd for which their own ears only tell the tale and only their ears; cables, must be investigated in psychoacoustics studies. Period.

Not on audio thread. If a cable matter for you fine, If the cable do not do the job,   dont go objecting with Maxwell or contradicting  by using it corrected by quantum theory. It is useless.Preposterous.Ridicule. I dont like cables thread. 😁😊😋

@audphile1 
How do you explain cables being //Not difficult to hear// but impossible to see on a frequency or amplitude graph? Are the cables making a difference in sound apart from frequency and amplitude? I honestly want to know what you think. 

Measuring something is both an art and a science.  It is called Metrology.  The methodology to measure something is just as important as the measurement equipment used.  Let‘s consider an interconnect cable.  What could we measure?  Well, we can measure length, weight, diameter.  We can measure tensile strength, flex strength, minimum bend radius, hardness of the wire, wire gage, etc.  The list can grow quite long.  Then we can measure it‘s electrical properties.  A cable has resistance, capacitance and inductance.  But those three properties are not fixed.  They can vary with temperature, frequency of the signal passing through and amplitude.  Let‘s say we measure this interconnect cable with an LCR meter.  We get a value for resistance, capacitance and inductance.  That measurement doesn‘t say anything about a signal passing through at 5000 Hz or 10,000 Hz or 20,000 Hz.  I remember cable makers back in the 1980s touting their audio cables could pass signals in the MHz range.  I wondered what use was that?  Well, now I understand that harmonics in cables up into the ultrasonic range is important to the sounds within our range of hearing.  So the properties of that cable will cause the phase angle to change between the input and output but the amount of change is dependent upon the frequency.  I‘ve never seen anyone map that in a cable measurement.  How about a waterfall plot of an interconnect showing impedance, and phase angle across a frequency range from 0-100,000 Hz? One cable vs another will have phase angle changes that are unique.  Non-linearities.  Non-linearities are the biggest headache in engineering.  Hard to predict the outcome without some extensive computer modeling.  And in the end, what measurements we see on a graph could be smearing over what is so easily heard.

Another example:  How mechanical vibrations can affect the sound of a cable.  How can that be?  I don‘t know, but I have heard the difference between an isolated cable vs one that is exposed to mechanical vibrations.  My guess is that movements of the wires inside the cable alter the capacitance and inductance- an additional complication.  These minute mechanical changes create colorations in the sound, smearing of images.  I bet cable manufacturers know or understand much of this but they aren‘t about to give away trade secrets to how or what they measure as well as how they manufacture.

Another way to measure a cable that came to mind is a Bode plot.  The X-axis is frequency, say 0-100,000 Hz and then two lines on the Y-axis.  The first line would be amplitude ratio, input over output and the second line on the Y-axis would be phase angle.  Now I know the changes in those two lines for a cable will be very small- nothing like an amplifier circuit; but variation will be there.  Again, easier to hear than to measure.