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

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!

I recently purchased a pair of Audience AU-24 speaker cables & I/C's based on the review. The Audience is a VERY THIN CABLE and easy to connect to my EAD TheaterMaster-8, PowerMaster 1000 and Bohlender Graebener planar speakers which are bi-amped. As compared to the Straight Wire Serenade and Virtuoso, the AU-24 is more musical with crystalline highs, a definite improvement on the treble post. Santana's Supernatural sounded magical with this cable. I briefly put a pair of Red Dawn Rev2 on the treble post . The red dawn sounded nice but did not have the depth or substance that the AU-24 or Virtuoso had. The Straight Wire Virtuoso provided much better mid-bass than the Serenade but I had a hard time discerning a large improvement between the Virtuoso and AU-24 when connected to the mid-bass post.
Caveat-- my speakers only go down to 80 hz and I am using a Sony 7700 DVD player (next upgrade project) with Nordost Silver Shadow Shadow digital cable. I really like what the AU-24 did to top-end and would recommend trying this cable. If wife acceptace factor is important the cable is thin and easy to hide.
I could not agree more that components and cables sound different in other systems. Enjoy the music!

While there isn't much contained in all the posts above; that I wasn't already aware of--and agree with.--I would like to hear from someone whom has tried HMS VS Au 24. How'z that for world class in a"run on" sentence?

I have over the years learned how to better decipher the pertinent information from the reviewers. As for my impressions of the AU 24 cables based solely on the Stereophile review, they sound like an excellent "low cost" cable and a great place to start your search for a cable upgrade. As per the comparison to Valhalla, I looked a bit deeper for the answer. In that Brian Damkroger's system is a complete opposite of mine, I must determine how his thoughts would apply to me.
The common ground we both have is Valhalla cabling as our "reference" so with that I have some insight. For the most part, Brian has a analog/ tube system Not equipment I'd call dark like BAT but darker than my Plinius, Placette. He offsets the darkness with a "brighter" speaker Megnepan. My assumptions from this equipment is he wants the tonal value of tubes and analog and finds the imaging and detail from the speakers. Bass must not be of the highest in his priorities, but midrange and extension are.
Given these assumptions, I have the information to draw the conclusions needed from his review. First off, my impressions are that the AU 24 is darker and more laid back than the Valhalla. Secondly the Valhalla sound a bit more open and extended, less forgiving. Given these are also my impressions of Valhalla, I read on. Brian preferred the Valhalla over the AU 24 as an interconnect. He did not find a huge difference, which tells me the AU 24 is a very good cable. I believe his preference is solely based on the associated equipment, not the cable. The Valhalla is able to pass on more signal, in an open extended way, where the AU 24 by nature is restrictive. In that his tube gear is also restrictive, it's a double whammy. The Valhalla is offsetting the tube gear. When he got to the speaker cable, it was just the opposite. The Magnepan can sound harsh and bright by nature, thus the more laid back cable is a better fit. He preferred the AU 24 over the far more expensive Valhalla because it was a better match for his system.
So in conclusion, if we do not consider the whole story, the judgments drawn from the review may be wrong. The bottom line is AU 24 is a very good choice to consider while evaluating cables. If your running mainly solid state gear that has yet to resolve the harsh glare inherent with most solid state, these cables might be perfect. If on the other hand your system is tube base these cables may not be the best, maybe something with some or all silver should be considered. These of course are generalizations, I have all solid state and Valhalla with not a sign of glare or harshness. If the equipment is good enough the issues of both tube and solid state are fairly well resolved, meaning that the most neutral open signal is probably the best.