I think our environments and systems will mean this is near enough to the truth, Except for those who KNOW that it’s all in our minds (or test certificates). I understand the need to explain (and yes, understand) but in the end we hear what we hear, and there should be no falling out over it.
Except, of course, my ears are better than yours. 
Jim,
In the absence of 999 others, I did blind test my wife (and received scorn for it). The only thing she knew was that one cable had already cost me a princely $30 and the other potentially £4,000+. On two occasions, a week apart, she chose the pricey one on musical terms.
Thanks goodness, as she’s my financial controller.
Xanthe was suggesting a test to determine the effect of orientation, not a comparison between two different cables. They are totally different scenarios.
Music is not meant to be stood and looked at, it’s mean’t to be enthralling, with arms waving and feet tapping and for this reason alone, for me, the BJCs are gone.
I’m not sure that applies to a Bach cantata. Fatboy Slim maybe.
An incidental, but convincing test for me: as soon as the new Music cable came I slapped a few of my test tracks on. Normally I’d play a few minutes before reverting, but tellingly I was enticed to play to the end and listen to more music (small “m”).
True, but the Bach Cello sonatas are all based on dance, and I’d oblige if only I knew the moves
I listen to all types of music and certainly NOT ‘the commercial’ Fatboy Slim.
Not so, HH.
If you have been reading Xanthe’s posts they have consistenly said throughout this thread that the SQ effects of any cable in any system are entirely random.
Jim
Yes, I’m well aware of the interesting results of your tests, including your 2 blind tests.
And in this and other threads on this forum very expensive cables usually outperform fairly cheap good ethernet cables - e.g. for BertBird, Dave, FR, Peder and his group, etc.
Ditto dozens of threads on other forums.
(Admittedly, less so on PFM where the intensity of ideologically driven criticism by anti-cable enthusiasts removes all the fun and makes it hard even to exchange useful information or report the results of tests on the topic.)
And also for cables in the extremely expensive bracket to be exactly as good as good cheap cables in their effect on SQ you would have to also write off all hifi dealers who sell posh cables as either deluded or liars, ditto all those companies and people who design and manufacture and distribute posh ethernet cables.
Jim, easily the best post yet. 
Bring.back the CD3!
I agree wholeheartedly which is why the BJC are staying in my system and I’m moving the AQ on. I have two BJC cat 6a coming today that I will test this weekend but I don’t expect there to be a notable difference b/w the two (cat 6).
Re Xanthe’s comment about random results, I interpret the comment to mean the randomness of system set up ensures we get random results, not randomness of cable effect.
Ok thanks. I look forward to your conclusions. At the moment I have BJC Cat 6a from switch to router and BJC from my NAS device to switch, but currently the Vodka from all to Streamer has kicked some urgency into the game. All BJC was boring here. Like all Cinnamon.
I look forward to hearing what you think.
I hated the Vodka, even after giving them a month to settle down.
No I don’t mean to say that the results will be random from time to time or listener to listener.
The results will be randomised between different systems, different noise environments and different network devices at each end of the cable. For a specific system, in a specific noise environment and with specific network devices at each end of the cable, the result will (usually) remain consistent.
A Vodka after a pair of Jeans is where it’s at buddy!.
Yes, of course the results will not be random from time to time. I didn’t think you meant that. That would be ridiculous.
Yes, I didn’t think the results would be random from listener to listener. That would also be ridiculous. My question above includes 1000 experienced listeners specifically to take away any individual differences - so listener to listener differences are averaged out in the scientific expt I outlined.
Yes, I agree that “for a specific system, in a specific noise environment and with specific network devices at each end of the cable, the result will (usually) remain consistent”.
1000 listeners each judge the 2 cables in a specific system and then we know which one is best.
(The repetition of this expt in 99 other systems would just check whether the first system was an anomaly.)
So although you have not answered the question, it seems that you think that very expensive cables like the Chord Music would not be preferred over a good basic cable like a BJC, because as you keep saying you think that the effect of ethernet cables on SQ is totally random.
Is that correct?
A major problem with this argument - that the interaction of cable and system gives a random effect on SQ - is that from all the mass of evidence that is not at all the result.
Just on this thread the large majority of the several people who have tried the BJC have preferred them to other free, cheap or mid priced cables.
But almost everyone who compared BJC to very expensive cables has said that BJC were very good, but that the very expensive cables were much better.
So it’s not random at all.
Unless we deny all those empirical tests, the more expensive cables have a better effect on SQ on average than the cheap ones.
And among the cheaper cables, BJC seem to be preferred in a range of good systems. Again, that is not at all random.
No that’s not correct either - the effect of an Ethernet cable isn’t that it has a consistent ‘sound’ from one system to another or how it affects the listener, it’s the difference of the effect that the cable has on the system that’s random.
It may or it may not be preferred, there’s no way to know without trying it.