Science is not a "God". Scientific method itself has been shown this century to be deficient in several regards, most notably in the biases and perseptive limitations of the scientific minds that conduct the experiements (It never fails to amaze me that those who adhere rigidly to the assumption that the assumptions of scientific method discern primary truth are also the people unaware of the progeny of Kant to Popper to Kuhn to Freyerabend, which seems to disclose, logically speaking, an issue of self-reflection...).
It does not matter why the cable changed sound. In an empiric experiment, you can not dispense with valid observations because you do not know why they occured. Such a position merely reveals an underlying bias to the methodology, namely, that those observations that conform to assumptions of the truth of the preciever that existed prior to the conducting of the experiment are favored, ie observed with greater attention and selected thereby, and those observations unexplained by the existing paradigm of ideas are dispensed with less attention, or in this case, even an apology for seeing something else (even though, logically, that assumably incongruent observation was arrived at with equal application of the same method).
If you were truly scientific, then you would turn your attention to why the cable changed sound. And if you could not find the answer within you paradigm of ratio-empiric rules, then, even by those rules, you must examine those assumptions for a partiality in perspective or perception that is denying you an understanding of that given observation. To deny that is itself counter to the ratio-empiric logic that underlies scientific method.
It does not matter why the cable changed sound. In an empiric experiment, you can not dispense with valid observations because you do not know why they occured. Such a position merely reveals an underlying bias to the methodology, namely, that those observations that conform to assumptions of the truth of the preciever that existed prior to the conducting of the experiment are favored, ie observed with greater attention and selected thereby, and those observations unexplained by the existing paradigm of ideas are dispensed with less attention, or in this case, even an apology for seeing something else (even though, logically, that assumably incongruent observation was arrived at with equal application of the same method).
If you were truly scientific, then you would turn your attention to why the cable changed sound. And if you could not find the answer within you paradigm of ratio-empiric rules, then, even by those rules, you must examine those assumptions for a partiality in perspective or perception that is denying you an understanding of that given observation. To deny that is itself counter to the ratio-empiric logic that underlies scientific method.