Have you seen any CABLE measurement tests?

I certainly have not. Not either in stereophile or Absolute sound. Would not a simple measurement if input signal v/s output signal measurements will tell you straight wire without gain?

Which, if any, cable manufacturer publish such test results?

why do you need cable measurements? what will they tell you?

can you tell by reading measurements how a partcular cable will sound in your system?
are you saying a person listening blind will usually prefer a cable which measures better than another cable ?

No, I'm saying that a person listening blind will usually not prefer either, because he usually won't be able to tell them apart. When he can tell them apart blind, the measured differences will be substantial, because you need a substantial difference in RLC values to produce an audible difference in frequency response.

IOW, for cables what we can predict from measurements is whether differences will be audible--again, assuming you don't know which is which. If you do know which is which, that knowledge alters your perception.

finally what about the particular components feeding and receiving a signal, isn't there an affect of the components being interfaced upon a cables performance ?

Yeah, but again this is no mystery. If you know the output impedance of the amp, the RLC of the cable, and the impedance curve of the speaker, you (or rather, some software) can plot the FR curve of the cable in that system. In general, the output impedances of solid state amps and the impedance curves of most box speakers are such that most normal cables will not produce audible FR differences. (They may produce level differences because of resistance losses, which is why level-matching is required for good tests.) If you're trying to drive electrostatics with a tube amp, YMMV.

Thanks for adding some clarity to all the confusion and misinformation about cables.
In the interests of science, please provide a link which describes any test, done by anyone, which is considered beyond reproach in its methods, that can support such a conclusion in such a way to establish is at irrefutable fact.

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Thank you.
Twl: You're obviously not any kind of scientist. If you were, you'd know that there are no irrefutable facts, and whole theories are never proven by single experiments. (Remember what Einstein said about that.)

That said, just which conclusion are you talking about?