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

The basic philosophy might indeed work as a starting point. When ‘we' speak of "system dependant" and "system matching" I believe these thoughts do indeed work for most cases. It's important to first understand the characteristics of the components we are using, and secondly try to identify the weaknesses inherent in that equipment.
As an example, Krell is a well thought of manufacturer that has produced some of the most revealing, transparent and fast equipment. The bass on Krell is as quick and tight as any I've heard and the mid-range is smooth but not colored. One the other side of the coin is a tendency towards harshness, edginess maybe even glare in the high frequencies. If I were looking for a cable to match these characteristics I would start with an all copper, "darker" cable. The speed loss inherent with copper is not important at the beginning in that we using an extremely fast component. Cardas would be a great choice to begin with, but this is a very well rounded market and there are any number of cables to look to.
On the other hand, when we are looking for the characteristics of silver (speed, high end extension, transparency) the matching becomes a bit more difficult. Silver tends to pass on any high frequency noise generated up stream more so than copper. This might be RFI, tube noise or glare in the circuits, so finding the right silver cable can be more of a challenge. I think this is why we see so many silver/copper combinations.
I guess what I've found is silver has far less leeway, it's much more demanding on the equipment and it's sonic qualities than copper. But with the right combination silver will do things that copper can not.

Here is another take on the same subject. When reading a review, again we must understand what the "system" of the reviewers consists of and how it relates to us. Let's take for example that a reviewer had my exact system. Sony SCD-1 (with mods) Placette pre amp, Plinius SA-102 amps and Dunlavy IVa speakers. Being all solid state the first impression might be that the sound could tend to be a bit forward and/or harsh in the top end. Now add to my system that I use Valhalla cables and the thoughts might be reinforced that this system sounds "bright". If I went on to tell you I felt the system was extremely neutral and natural, which is how I refer to my system, then we must consider why. One thought might be my personal tastes are towards "bright" and by reading my other posts you might substantiate that though. That would give you insight to read onward. I however do not like "bright" and edgy systems so the reasons must be elsewhere. Valhalla cable has been talked about by enough reviewers as being very revealing, open, fast and in some systems "bright" that we know the cable is not the natural factor. The SCD-1 has been written up to be "polite" and laid back compared to some other SACD players, but the modifications made tended to counter those aspects of the SCD-1. This might help us understand the SCD-1 is not an offensive component, and may help understand why the modified machine has been referred to as "analog" like. The Placette has been heavily reviewed as a "non" component, adding nothing to the signal, so I would conclude this is not the reason for a natural sound either, although I could also conclude it is indeed adding nothing objectionable to the signal. The Dunlavy speakers are full range, and in the latest Stereophile review JA claimed they were a bit forward, so that must not be it either. The Plinius SA-102 is new and is a second generation of the highly regarded SA-100. The original amp was said to have tube like qualities in the upper and mid range, with solid state slam in the bass. The conclusion I might draw from this information is the Plinius must be grain and glare free, and smooth enough to not be bright sounding even with Valhalla cables. So given this assumption, one could look at any one of these components and know they can be used in an open, very revealing system without adding the "bad" parts of solid state.

Jadem6, having read your comment which I can place very well, and agreeing to synergy and system dependability, is there a way to objectively interpret a review? Is reading and bearing in mind a review not such a thing as redefining an existing problem and/or defining a new one?

Piet
I think a review can only be considered a piece of information, something much deeper than simple specs, but it's hard to find any real answers in them. As an example I'm trying a pair of Air-Tight ATM-3 mono blocks right now for a review later this month on Audiogon. I'm trying harder than the magazines to be honest and relate useful characteristics plus trying to hypothesize what might be a better fit than my system to get the best from the amp. In effect my attempts at considering better matches is how I read reviews, only in this case I'm hearing the product. I'm hoping the effort will be a model for other reviews, in that the more information regarding sonic characteristics the more I can use the review as a tool.
As to your comment on redefining an existing problem, I'm not sure where you were going with the question. I guess that's one way to look at the whole picture, as a problem that requires a solution, I see it more as dating. We start out looking for different characteristics in people that we like. Over time we discover the good things and seek them out while avoiding the aspects we know irritate us. If we are lucky we find a fit that works for life, it may require small "Tweaks" but no major changes. So rather than seeing it as solving problems I see it as learning what qualities that fit my personal taste. Only listening can truly decide that for stereos, but the reviews can help us narrow the possibilities.