A vocabulary based on subjective impressions is not enough...
But we must correlate our impressions about sound with an objective background, which is acoustic and psycho-acoustic vocabulary...
If not, "tasting" cables is, unlike tasting wine which is some form of a learned art, is an arbitrary description which no one could related to...Because of all the difference between room/system and hearing history and experiences between us...
But if i say this "cable" improve the " listener envelopment" / "source width ratio", LV/ASW ratio, without unbalancing the relation between high frequencies and bass but increasing timbre perception, i will buy it ...
If not, keep it....
By the way the worst thing to do is calling people cables believers or cables naysayers.... The two groups are wrong...Like the few objective zealots versus some subjective fetichists...
We must learn to listen before speaking.... Acoustic is the only encompassing objective background here, not mere electrical measures...
By the way if a cable change a too " tubby" sound in a more brightier one in one system , or vice versa, it is not enough to be proof that this cable is good in general , because his impact is related to a precise system unbalance problem which this cable help to forgot about but do not really solve, then a change here will not be a proof of an improvement at all for all system and for everyone...
It will only be a change which will seems for the better for someone...An improvement must be based on objective general solution and device control...An improvement is not a change...A improvement increase the way you relate to all aspect of sound, it is not a different "color"...
This is why we need to use acoustic vocabulary not an audiophile vocabulary inherited from gear engineering tasting marketing...