LOL
Plain English has no chance. Complex English does. Except it has to
be pursued by the reader to the ends of their own psychological
limits.... otherwise nothing comes through. Ie, one has to elevate
themselves to the question and answer set. It is already as simplified
as it can be and that is noted to be quite ineffective. Questions and
answers equal one another.
@teo_audio, as you so deftly illustrated above, torturing syntax like Torquemada torturing an apostate doesn't result in "complex English". Nice dodge, but no cigar. Language can be used to communicate, or to obfuscate; I'll leave to readers to identify your usage for themselves.
I think it's clear that cables - whether speaker cables or interconnects - can indeed sound different. Cables can be, and are in some cases, designed as blunt force tone controls, altering the signal to an audible level during transmission. I don't, personally, find that to fulfill the basic purpose of a cable, that being to transfer the signal from component A to component B with as little change as possible. If it measures like a choke, it's a choke, not a cable. It is also possible, and certainly not unknown, for components (Naim anyone?) to have somewhat pathological input/output sections that are not stable over the *normal* ranges of R/L/C encountered in cables. But IMO we're talking about pathology here, not good engineering design.
And yes, in years past I have participated in open (sighted) A/B testing of cables, and subsequent single blind and double blind tests of the same cables and found that differences were easily detected in open testing, yet vanished without a trace in both blinded tests. None of the cables tested were of the 'pathological design' variety, or designed for a "specific sound" - they were a number of well constructed AQ cables (i.e. no batteries, no potted network boxes, no elevators, no...well, you get the idea).
