Any good.... JPS

Mr. Samuel- As you will note, I did NOT intend to single you out in my previous response as you weren't the only participant on this thread. It was the general tenor of the responses that caused my retort. If I read more into the comments than intended, I will apologize. However, since you did respond to my general criticism, I will offer specifically what I found disturbing. First, you were the one who claimed that there was "covert promotion" occurring at this site. Your general style of questions in the next response ended with an accusatory sentence that I could not help but infer that you believed that the person in question, Brulee, might have some other than honest reason to recommend a particular product. This suggestion was then furthered by a subsequent respondent. As I'm sure that you can understand, this type of -shall I use a word as strong as ATTACK- of another's character based solely on supposition is quite distasteful - as you obviously found my non-specific reference to "product abc?". This was a completely non-specific comment and I regret that you found it to be so personal. In contrast, imagine what Brulee, and anyone else reading this thread, might have inferred from the very personal insinuation levied in the thread. Again, if I read too much into the responses or insulted you personally, I do apologize.

jc tubes wrote: >>>As I'm sure that you can understand, this type of -shall I use a word as strong as ATTACK- of another's character based solely on supposition is quite distasteful<<< ...ATTACK on his character??? You're really on safari with that term jc... I said: "Why are you pushing FIM so hard?" How do you get anything but a question out of that? Given Brulee's somewhat promotional comments above, his failure to answer the original question, and even stronger(and imo reckless) comments elsewhere, my question was no where near out of line. Brulee took no offense and accepted some responsibility for making comments that could be misconstrued as promotion. He both answered my question and sent me a commiserative e-mail on the matter. You appear to be the only one crying foul here. No I wasn't the least offended by anything you had to say on the matter, I merely pointed out that you were doing the exact same thing that you accused me of. I was amused by the gravity you were attaching to a situation that was clearly not what you were claiming and did not involve you. Asking direct questions about someones motivation is NOT attacking or questioning character, I was asking for information. Is there covert promotion occurring at this site? After viewing all the boards and looking at various responses, my answer is, ABSOLUTELY! You can't possibly be naive enough to believe this site is free from it? If I see something that looks questionable, it is within the bounds of reason to question it, or ask for background. Again, I accepted Brulee's explanation at face value and commended him for owning his comments. So, the matter seemed resolved for everyone... but you. I have every right to comment and ask questions within the bounds of interpersonal decorum here. There's far too much of the "this is best" exchanges and soundbytes of info on this forum, and that rarely gets pointed out. No, I don't believe excess context and "IMO" statements are always warranted or needed, but the complete opposite of that appears to occur here quite often. Unequivocal statements of one products superiority to another in all applications is not in the best interests of people seeking hobby information. I have just as much right to express that opinion as people have to make their "This is the best ever" comments...It's about balance jc, and I felt that this, and some other threads here, lack it.

It's all very well being full of enthusiasm for a product, but, as Samuel said, statements such as 'product x bests products y and z in all areas' are meaningless, if not dubious. Reviewing hi-fi components is a difficult business and IMO the biggest constraint on any view expressed is not factual (other system components, room, ac supply, etc) but neurological, i.e. the manner in which the brain of the reviewer interprets the data supplied by his/her auditory system. The appreciation of music could be said to involve three elements: genetics (how innately musical we are); upbringing (the music we were exposed to as children), and metaphysics (the ability of music to transcend time and space in the mind of the listener). If the reviewer is a well-known musician or personal friend, then we MAY be in a position to judge on the first two elements and hence decide how relevant the review's contents are to us. If this is not the case, then how are we to make such a judgement? Personally, I value a reviewer's opinions more if the musical examples (assuming there are any) he/she cites suggest similar tastes and if a genuine love of music is apparent in the text. (Some critics talk in very general terms, e.g. lows/mids/highs, transparency, soundstaging, classical/rock/jazz, etc, without ever discussing how their ENGAGEMENT with the music was affected.) Of course, forums such as this are generally not the place for such a considered approach, so, in the interests of balance, I'll end by saying that I found the FIM Gold speaker cable to sound warm and slow (I haven't heard the power cord) and that I listen mostly to jazz and modern classical.