I have hoped this was clear, absolutely clear.

... I have to add that I really do not like the philosophical debates about engineering issues.

What I really do not like is when someone is UNWILLING to make any true effort to explain what they are trying (or pretending) to say and writes something like, "I really do not like the philosophical debates about engineering issues." Pooh.

You have taken some liberties, the latest among them being your use of the word "philosophical" to disparage perfectly technical criticisms of stuff you have written. When people aren't able to follow what you're saying and they ask you to explain, you answer by posting graphs, and you do not explain the graphs or how the graphs are supposed to answer their question. There is a truth here that needs to be said plainly:

**thus far you have not made any*** sincere *effort to answer peoples' questions, when they have asked questions because they aren't able to make sense of what you are saying.
What I would really like is for you to show the

**algebra** that gives justification to whatever it is exactly you are ostensibly saying. If you truly have a clear understanding of what you are saying, you will be able to explain it using some simple algebra. There are three complex-valued impedances in series. The expression for the voltage drop across any one of the three is much the same for all three of them, the only difference being the numerator in the rational expression. For each of the three impedances, the denominator in the expression is the same: the sum of the three impedances.

**Each and every one of the voltages you are reading is influenced by ***all three of the impedances*. It is not apparent to me that you realize this. Perhaps you do, but you haven't thus far provided any real evidence that would convince me that you do.

You wrote:

To eliminate amplifier effect, voltage is measured at amplifier output B and speaker input A and the ratio A/B shows the frequency response added by the cable.

What exactly do you mean by "the frequency response added by the cable"? The ratio of those two voltages, A/B, is mathematically equivalent to the ratio of the two impedances. If any of your graphs actually show this ratio (as opposed to the difference A - B, or B - A), then what that graph is actually showing is the ratio of the speaker impedance to the cable impedance at various frequencies. Perhaps it is meaningful in some context to show the ratio of those two impedances, but I can't see as how it would make sense to equate this ratio to "the frequency response added by the cable". If it happens that what is displayed on the screen is actually the difference between those two voltages (as opposed to the ratio), then what it is showing is the difference between the two impedances. Again, it may be useful in some context to show the difference between the cable impedance and the speaker impedance, but I can't see as how it would make sense to equate this difference to "the frequency response added by the cable". In order for this to make sense, you have to first explain exactly what you mean by "the frequency response added by the cable". I honestly do not know what this even means. You obviously think it is a meaningful concept, but I am skeptical as to whether it is.