I just read this whole thread (whew) and have one possibly original observation to share: there seems to be some suggestion in the original posting and subsequent discussion that "psychological"="sensory"="not verified with electronic measuring equipment and therefore not real." I wish to offer a distinction: there is a popularly understood sense of the word "psychological" to mean "only imagined." I strongly disagree with the implication that "sensory"="psychological" in this sense. Just because something is observed by humans but nobody has caused it to create a statistical artifact on a paper trace, the something can still be real. Steve, while you wait for the measuring equipment to be delivered, please consider gathering some data with the equipment that's already built into your body. The human sensory apparatus is way more sophisticated than the most impressive soldered-together collections of silicon and metal. Consider the fragrance industry, which employs finely-calibrated human noses operated by their owners, and employs them in a most scientific manner. Machines have not been invented which can do what those people can do. Their apparatus is sensory, but their sensory perceptions are not "psychological" in the sense described above. I personally have heard difference in cables strongly enough that I believe them and have no doubt that a blind test would confirm my observations. If I may offer for your sensory measurement the artifact which finally convinced me: Track 2 of Dave Matthews Band "Crash", about 2:50 in--someone in the background is saying "t-t-t-t-t". That sound is palpably different on different cables. I never even noticed it until I installed some better-but-still-cheap interconnect cables a couple days ago (like, $50 or so). Until I heard that, I too pooh-poohed cables. Now I'm afraid to listen to more expensive ones, for fear I'll have to have them. Cheers.