Regarding a review in the Aug '02 Stereophile...

It never suprises me when people compare lower priced cables to higher priced cables and find them to be suprisingly similar or better. Most cables are unbelievably overpriced (even the cheaper ones), and the prices are certainly based more on brand name and demand than they are quality. I'm sure the Audience cables are good (though still far from cheap) and I'm sure the Nordost cables are good and ridiculously overpriced. No big surprise, really.

Reviewers are always making those comparisons and finding X-brand $1500 CD player 90% or 95% as good as y-brand $7000 CD player. They always mention that as if X-brand CD for $1500 is such a great player and a true hi-fi bargain, but being a bit cynical...it makes me think that y-brand for $7000 is way too expensive and really not all that much better. I feel the same way about the cable comparisons.

From my vantage point where most reviewers fail is in the awareness that all cables and components are in many ways system specific. They don't seem to consider system synergy. They all list the system they use in their review, but they associate all that they hear to the cable or the component under review.

For example, if a revealing cable uncovers some harshness in the reviewer's CD player; the reviewer will still comment that the cable sounded a little harsh, even though it could be his CD player that is harsh, not the cable; etc, etc.

Phild - like all components in electronics, if you want to get the last 5% of performance out of cables, you have to resort to exotic materials and constructions. This is expensive no matter how you spin it. Low volume, high-cost = expensive. The challenge is finding the product that achieves the point of diminishing returns for a reasonable price. An most of all, ignore the price and listen to the performance.

Sugarbrie, as a reviewer, I completely agree with you. EVERYTHING is system dependent, room dependent and dependent on the reviewer's biases, experiences, personal tastes and preferences. It is VERY difficult (if not impossible) to ever ascribe any absolute terms or adjectives to a piece of gear due to this inherent problem. What I think a reviewer CAN do is try to describe what it did in HIS/HER system and, assuming only ONE variable is changed, describe what those changes, if any, are. Then the reader can extrapolate what they need from the context. This gets a little easier if you have been follwing the reviewer for years and are familiar with his/her biases, system etc. For example, I had read Brian Damkroger's reviews for years because, for a while, he and I had MUCH of the same gear and he found it to sound like I did. Therefore, with that as a point of reference, if Brian said equipment "A" was "bright" or "hard" sounding, I could relate better from his perspective being close to mine.

Conversely, if say a Sam Tellig, who listens to some nice single ended triodes, says a piece of gear is "bright" or "hard" sounding, what I may take from that may be completely different (not because Sam is better or worse than Brian, but because their systems, experiences, and points of reference are so different).

In the end, the reviewer can only serve as a limited information source to be taken in context (not to mention they may not even be setting the gear up correctly) and as only a start to a thorough audition by you (e.g., trust your own ears in the end and do not worry if reviewer "X" likes it or not). Just my $.02.

Fmpnd, may I multiply yr $0,02? I second, third & fourth your motion!
Cheers!