Yes. Thus far, all evidence and theory points to a conclusion that any properly made USB (or other audio) cable will perform identically to another of similar length. The only exception being those where the cable is part of the circuit (e.g. electric guitar), or where the cable is improperly used (or otherwise flawed) and causing feedback/inductance, or poorly shielded and other problems). Usually excluded by the "properly made" statement.
Human voices: computers can do this, measurements can do this. Voice print for one, and as I stated before, all we are looking for is identifying a difference between them, not the content and meaning of the difference.
Identifying sound-stage, imaging and layering in an IEM or headphone, etc. - You have not shown that measurements cannot evaluate this. I also don't have a problem with ABX and DBT being used as an evaluation tool (per my earlier statements). I DO have a problem with sighted/biased human evaluation being presented as acceptable for this field, when it is not for any other.
I don't disagree - audio does seem to get away with many wild claims that don't fly in other fields. But I disagree that the science is somehow more exact, or the instrumentation is somehow better and data more conclusive for video - the data for audio is very conclusive, but people seem to be more willing to ignore it.
Anyone using eq and effects to make the STAX measure badly, is not doing science. Those studies and measurements would be discarded as flawed data, and should not be considered a flaw in the measurement process. Those are a flaw in the people who misunderstand the nature and value of experimentation.
Ultimately - I suspect you and I largely agree. There is too much marketing hogwash, and too much of the audio press and public lets it slip (or propagates it). I just also think there is less mystery to audio than you do.
Edited by liamstrain - 4/27/12 at 8:07am