I have done the first set of measurements with the runitdirect cables and compared them with the Tandy cables. This is not a fair comparison because the runitdirect cables are all half the length, 0.25m * 2 and 0.5m for the third, whereas the Tandy cables are 0.5m and 1m. Also proper anti-DLM precautions have not been followed, and this is not a decent statistical sample so extreme caution has to be taken.
The runitdirect direct cables synched around the same rates as the Tandy cables, on average very very slightly slower in both directions ( < 0.3% down, < 1% up ) not at all statistically significant and they were not consistently slower either so I suggest no conclusion can be drawn. Also SNRM figures at the time of the Tandy measurement were all over the place so no conclusion can be drawn from them, but if decent repeat SNRM figures can be captured it might be worth trying to include initial SNRMs into the evaluation of the synch results (somehow?). The attenuation figures both down and up were a fixed 0.1 dB worse for the runitdirect cables consistently across all lines. Within the limitations of the fact that this is only one sample this is an interesting result that the runitdirect cables cause everso slightly more loss even though they are half the length. But set against this is the fact that the lines have a 0.6dB downstream / 0.5dB upstream spread between them anyway, despite the fact that the runs are identical, so it could just possibly be that this 0.1dB is merely within the noise threshold. However it is interesting that the difference is fixed.
So the Tandy cables have a possible extremely slight performance advantage over the runitdirect cables, but you would do very well with either.
Mrs Weaver said that the runitdirect cables were an extremely good fit, having the strictly correct RJ45 plug on the wallsocket end.
So at this extremely early stage there is nothing much in it, as expected.