Physics or perception?
First case: Ribbon cables like Magnan Signature and Nordost Valhalla are very popular with electrostats. The argument is that they minimize skin effect and, therefore, maintain signal coherence more effectively. The attributes generally ascribed to this bit of physics are neutrality, speed and accuracy. So, first question is, is the physical effect measurable? Second question, can the sonic attributes be linked to the measurable physical effect. I believe the answer to the second question is where the difficulty resides. It is difficult to connect a sonic impression to the physical observable with any reliability.
Case 2: People are generally very sensitive to the sense that something is warm vs bright. Absence of warm or bright is commonly thought neutral. I know of no claims where a cable that sounds bright with some equipment will sound warm with other equipment. What is actually physically responsible for this perceived spectral tilt? Is it a measurable?
Case 3: Transparent cable describes their cable as having a bandwidth limited to the audible range, resulting in a shift of the cable resonance frequency downward, with a corresponding increase in bass frequency transmission. Many people claim this to be audible. This is the ONLY case I know of in cable design where a predicted physical effect lines up with an observed sonic benefit.
Case 4: The most interesting observation about cable matching I have ever heard has to do with the notion that signal reflected at an impedance boundary will show up as noise after multiple reflections up and down a connecting cable, resulting in distortion and a loss of SNR, and a muddy sounding cable. Good physics. But sonic benefits? I hate this word "revealing", but it certainly is likely to apply here.
My own preferences? I would rather have neutral, accurate cables than play master chef of sonic blending.
