Cables and reviewers


Tons of creative designs out there. Lots of reviewers, with no consensus as to what's best. Seems to me that if there was a superior design, then we would see some kind of consensus forming around it. Maybe cable choice just not that important, at a given price point.
psag
Yes, from the physical exertion standpoint cables would be easiest but oh the angst.
First you'd have to ask yourself whether cables really make a difference and if they're worth the cost etc.

I don't have much sympathy with reviewers, but if I was one, cables would be my least favourite assignment. Just because, as others have said, cables are so system dependent, advice becomes meaningless

That doesn't mean all cable manufacturers sell snake oil. There are plenty of competent designs out there selling at acceptable prices. I would include here, Wywires, Silnote, Sablon audio and lessloss. The only way to go is to borrow some cable or buy second hand, with a view to selling on at hopefully, minimal loss and see how they are in your system.

A single pair of speaker wires or interconnects is easy to do, but full looms are a real pain, but big speakers are the worst to review, given that having two sets of speakers in the same room are a major problem, even if you short the terminals on the pair out of the system.

But what mankind knows about designing better cables is not total. Furthermore, people have different rooms, components, different voltages, and certainly different tastes. I am all for realism while others I know favor good, not tiring, and even sleepable music. Costs also greatly influences the picture.
I would argue that cables are different than other components. An optimally designed cable will carry a signal from one component to another with a minimum of distortion. AudioQuest (among others) often makes this point in their ads. An optimally designed cable will also do what its supposed to do in any reasonable system. A cable that only works well in a particular setting is not a well-designed cable. Regarding reviewers lack of consensus, the most likely explanation is a combination of bias, laziness, and incompetence.
So reviewers who are NOT biased, lazy and incompetent would/should all agree? Considering there probably is no human alive who doesn’t possess these traits to some degree I’m not sure I follow your logic.

Are you saying nothing should ever be reviewed unless the reviewer is perfect?
If fallible reviewers don’t write reviews who will?