Can we objectively rate speaker cables?

Nasaman say what?

Hi Jenny,

As you said in one of your posts, the ideas in your original post were not exactly discussed as much as other things, so I thought I would take a stab at it and throw out some ideas for thought.

Here are my suggestions for some scales that, taken together, might help pin down the characteristics of an audio component. I beleive the scales could be used for any type of component including speakers, amplifiers, wires and cables ....etc. It could be argued that for a given component some of the scales wouldn't apply. That is a reasonable arguement, I made the scales up independent of focusing on a particular component.

Anyway here goes nothing.....

1. Low Frequency Extension – describes how low the frequency response goes, as well as how well the bass balances with the rest of the frequency response.
(Lacking / Anemic……………………………………………………Deep / Full)

2. Low Frequency Character – describes the accuracy or clarity of the low frequency reproduction.
(Boomy / Indistinct………………………………………………Tight / Defined)

3. High Frequency Extension – describes how high the high frequency response goes, as well as how well the treble balances with the rest of the frequency response.
(Muffled / Dull…………………………………………………Sparkling / Extended)

4. High Frequency Character – describes the accuracy or clarity of the high frequency reproduction.
(Harsh / Metallic……………………………………………………Open / Airy)

5. Instrument Timbre – describes how accurately the instrument’s sound or voice is reproduced. How real do the instruments sound?
(Indistinct / Muddled…………………………………………Accurate / Palpable)

6. Timing – describes how clearly all elements of the music are kept in time.
(Dead / Unemotional……………………………………Toe Tapping / Engaging)

7. Ambience Reproduction – describes how clearly the performance venue sound cues are reproduced (reverberation, echo, background noise etc.)
(Flat / One Dimensional………………………………………3D / You Are There)

8. Transient Response – describes how well explosive / transient elements are presented (such as snare drum hits).
(Slow / Muted / Rounded………………………………………Fast / Pop / Snap)

9. Sound Stage Width – describes the over all perception of the width of the sound stage.
(Narrow / Compressed…………………………………………Wide / Expansive)

10. Sound Stage Depth - describes the over all perception of the depth of the sound stage.
(Flat / One Dimensional………………………3D / Walk Around The Instruments)

11. Sound Stage Height - describes the over all perception of the height of the sound stage.
(Single Line / Limited…………………………………Front Row / Bigger Than Life)

12. Resolution – describes how well minute sounds and details are reproduced, especially when they occur at the same time as louder sounds.
(Veiled / Muddy…………………………………………………Detailed / Precise)

From the other discussion that has gone on before, it would be fair to say that any rating will have to be a realitivistic one, specifically relative to the rest of the system the given component is in. However, as was suggested once before, hopefully some common patterns would arrise that helps define certain products.

At the very least it would be nice to have a common ground, common understanding that could be provided by a such a rating system.

ROVA

Rova, your list is much more comprehensive and if people would be willing to rate cables at that level it'd be very informative. But it seems this thread is somewhat of a bust. If someone here knows someone in the review business, they should suggest that professional reviewers provide such metrics. I know some reviewers rate some of these qualities on an scale of 0-100, with 100 being "best." What I'd rather know is what the thing itself is without value judgments of what is desirable.

Sounds very liberal. Let's not tell anyone why something is good when we can avoid the issue completely and describe a bunch of random characteristics. Let's not call a baby a baby, we'll just call it a fetus...and don't even get me started on the whole, not calling a terrorist a terrorist idea! Call the freakin Cable Company and try as many as you like...trust reality, not someone else's take on it:O) Unless of course you like avoiding reality.

I don't buy that the characteristics of cables varies depend on the components they are connecting. Cable is a passive component. It can't sound rich in one system and thin in another. Rova's explanation is more plausible. People's perception to their cable is set based on what kind of flaws their system had, and how the cable covered them up..