My main point is that both sides of the argument are biased and are not basing recommendations on science.

On science, yes, flawless science, you are right. No peer paper is available. But the question should be what is the evidence for differences, not against it. There is none.

I am even skeptical of my own observations, which is why I said that my results may have been biased.

Then what good is it?

I still have not seen any well conducted, peer reviewed research that have addressed the issue.

No one is interested for obvious reasons. Who will spend such money unless they have an interest in proving differences? And the answer is already evident from less rigorous testing over 20+ years. If those testing was so flawed, you'd see positive results all over the place. they just don't exist unless for a very good reason that there was something grossly wrong with the component.


If the person does not like the cables,

But how will they test for it? Through even more flawed protocol, sighted comparison? That just cannot be relyable at all, no maybe this or that about it. Useless.

I am still in the "we don't really know" group. Given that I am in this group (if it even exists), I don't think it would hurt to try cables, especially if they are relatively inexpensive and you can get your money back.

-ROJ


What is there to try, with flawed listeing, especially by one who knows that it is flawed, without any meaning for audible differences? Wasting time.