I forgot to mention state-of-the-art preamps that integrate a phono stage within the preamp chassis (Levinson, Ayre, Aesthetix, and their ilk). Michael, couldn't one of these or similar designs, provided that the integrated phono stage were sufficiently high in quality and comprehensive in versatility, improve on even the Musical Fidelity/Tara/Manley connection? Or, to put it another way, can any interconnecting cable, all other things being equal (I know, I know -- they never are), improve on no cable at all? Michael, Wes, and even Paul Bolin (who raved about the new Audio Research unit without the benefits of the Tara "Zero" in his set-up), isn't ANY interconnect going to befoul the sound somewhat, compared to a hard-wired, integrated approach? I know ALL you guys have heard quality integrateds. If getting the most out of my preamp-amp-phono preamp complex of components means putting out another 50 large just to strap 'em all in, why shouldn't some enterprising genius just build an all-in-one unit that hard-wires everything, especially since the ASR is at the state-of-the-art level? It seems to me that you could design such an integrated unit with the best parts available and still undercut by a large margin the best separates that demand an additional 30-50 grand on state-of-the-art cables.

Yo, bengrbum. It has been around a half-year since I posted this naive question to all the oscilloscope watchers. No replies. What is the problem? If integrateds do away with the need for cables, why design seperates? Why not design a chassis and hard-wire connections that does away with the cable debate?

Fremer has reveiwed a top-class integrated, and also has reviewed (supposedly) paradigm-setting cables.

Yet, he has been conspicuously silent.

If the cable question is even debatable , then why isn't NO cable a better alternative?

Michael? Woodies? Other graphable geniuses? It seems to me, this is a meaningful question. Who needs cables at ALL? Why? Technology has solved the metallurgical/space problems, so why isn't an integrated solution being trumpeted as the be-all-end-all, instead of a compromise?

Repeat. If the state-of-the-art in wiring costs 50 large plus, and amplifier (or even DAC) separates can come in as state-of-the-art at the low 5-figures, why not design a be-all-end-all integrated that eliminates the need for cable concerns?

Maybe DUP is right. Woodies and numbers freaks, I need a little help here...

Love the hair. Who does it?

Thanks for replying. "Conspicuously silent" was from my perspective -- I have never heard a satisfying explanation for why separates outperform integrateds, if cabling is a problem that needs to be addressed when strapping in the separates. The older arguments involved space and heat. Now, since technology has indeed marched on, these no longer hold.

Your point about reliability problems due to repair logistics doesn't convince me. Even with separates, you have to have a back-up unit as breakdown insurance -- why not have back-up integrateds?

Your point about system set-up and the special needs of reviewers is much more convincing, and I certainly defer to anyone's specific system needs, whether they apply to me or not.

I have no doubts about your call on the Tara cables. You listen carefully, go to live concerts, like a wide variety of music, and have the constant variety of set-ups available to all reviewers. Further, I can hear differences among different cables -- why shouldn't you? Your job is to report what you hear, and you do that very well. The economics involved in system choices are always up for grabs, since we all have individual notions about value. I wrote "supposedly paradigm-setting" in the context of "cables vs. no cables (i.e., state-of-the-art integrateds), not "Tara vs. ABC." If you say the Tara cables are the best you have heard, I believe it. I just wanted to know, are they better than NO cables, the hard-wired option provided by integrateds. I'm still not quite sure what you think on that score. Theoretically, given today's technology, and the inevitability of further advances, COULD integrated solutions render cables obsolete, based on your experience with the integrated you praised as state-of-the-art? For those of us who don't need the set-up flexibility you, as a reviewer, describe.

Again, thanks for the reply.

Cheers and happy tunes.

Okay. Sigh. I guess I'll have to hear 'em. In my cabin in the Sierras I have what aspires to be state of the art, and, God knows, I am a nut case when it comes to getting the most out of my system. It is simply because I aged during an era when improvements in all this stuff came exponentially. Hell, I used to have to worry about whether to buy Klipsch, Altec, JBL (on the, ahem, bright side) or KLH and AR on the more laid back side of the spectrum (or, later, Infinity 'stat hybrids, B&W's, or Quads). Much less about how to rope it all up.

I have two sets of tube preamp/amp combos -- Cary and VTL. And the latest Levinson solid state. I have about 15 large worth of AudioQuest wire holding it all together. Speakers are Triangle Magellans, the speakers that get me the closest to my memory of the live event -- they have the added advantage of high sensitivity (VERY easy to drive), so I don't have to worry about all that impedance crap. Compared to the Triangles, in terms of dynamics, silkiness, clarity, and soundstaging, the Wilsons, Dynaudios, and other pretenders to state of the art I have heard -- all sound electronic and forced. And the tubes get me inches closer to what I want, although you need solid state to be able to leave things on all day.

I can't imagine Taras getting me closer than the AQ's, but, God knows, I am willing to try. Gold is going to go into orbit, so money is not a problem (clowns run our nation's finances -- gold exposes clowns for what they really are...). I have had bad luck with Tara in the past. Comparatively, they have sounded fat and thick. But, maybe this time it is different. I just hate doing all that plugging, unplugging, and listening for the goddam nuances. I hope I can stay sober enough to survive it all. Wish me luck.

Michael, thanks for all your great reviews over the past 10-12 years or so...analog still gets you closest.

Cheers, and happy tunes.

I disagree, Jeff, as limited as my technical knowledge is. It seems to me that the obstacles to integration that you mention have already been conquered. Remember, you can have outboard power supplies for integrateds, too, with very high quality captive link-ups. Apparently, the hookup from the main unit to the power supply is less (technically) demanding than the other voodoo (from my perspective) solutions that involve interconnects (shielding, dialectric configurations, the all-important design of the terminals, the balancing of oxymoronic requirements like capacitance and resistance, and, of course, the metallurgy and geometry of the wire itself) and end up creating the endless variety of approaches that now exist in interconnects at the current state-of-the-art claims. You mention problems within the box, but hard wiring, it seems to me, presents far fewer gremlins than box-to-box interconnects.

Michael's concerns are genuine. How do you fight system set-up requirements? His review of the "ultimate" integrated thoroughly addressed those potential problems.

Aside from custom design, I don't see much help for the necessary evils in wiring your speakers to the output terminals of the power amplifier. Speaker hook-ups will remain crucial and compromised until somebody actually recognizes alternate solutions to the problem and attacks them with viable alternatives (soldered connections? Captive output terminal connections, from the amplifier?? Who knows what is possible?).

My query addressed, mainly, the pre-amp/amp link-up, and the pre-amp/phono link-up. I repeat. I see no technical obstacles, in light of steps already taken, to eliminating the vagaries of interconnect cables in these crucial applications. Given, again, steps already taken.

Now, you're not gonna be anti-progess, are you? Notice that DAC's are now being integrated into the pre-amp box. We are just getting started, it seems to me.

Cheers, and happy tunes.

DUP, what is a "Leviton"? And what does this have to do with cables?

I now have in my possession the Taras. I am in the process of evaluating them. What a pain in the ass. Instead of closing my eyes and listening to music, I am jumping around, plugging and unplugging, and (gasp!) listening for nuances. What a mortifyin' development. What's worse, I am hearing them. What they have to do with music is stuff for future conclusions.

DUP, I hate to take you back in time, but I do vaguely remember your scoffing at "imagined" differences among transport-to-DAC cables. There are measurable differences. See Harley's assertion in the latest Aboslute Bullshit about being able to, yes, measure jitter differences among different digital interconnects.

Now, since you know all things measured, you ought to be able to sink your teeth into this one. Meanwhile, I'm due back in Tahoe (fortunately, the trout on the Owens River are insatiable) Monday, for another round of cable-tasting.

Michael, Sam, and the rest of you...you don't get paid enough for this bullshit. Still, I promised.

Yo, Monty. Been a long time since we talked. Good to hear from a music lover.

I haven't "went for" them yet -- but I am in the process of giving them a good listen. Like Michael, I have been wired up with Audio Quest (later iterations than his), so the pre-conditions are (coincidentally, accidentally) there. I am using the IC's only, from phono stage to pre-amp, from pre-amp to power amp, and from line source (CD) to pre-amp. I have 3 1-meter pairs to play with, courtesy of my audiophool buddy in Salt Lake City. I had to buy him a bottle of '87 Pomerol (Petreus, dammit) to bribe him. I get 5 weeks. I am going back and forth between LA and Tahoe twice a week. What a pain in the ass. Still, the trout are hungry, and that makes it worth while.

They are great cables. So far, I haven't heard the kind of epiphany Michael describes. Different systems, I suspect, and different listening criteria. But they are better than good. I am getting mixed results. The Audio Quests I have are good, too.

I haven't listened to them in my "cheapo" LA apartment system, yet. The OLD AQ's (Sterling and Lapis X3) have ruled here in the city, at 1/3 the price of the other wires I have (occasionally and rarely) pitted them against. I can't wait for THAT test, since the cheapo system is supposed to have lower resolution capabilities, according to the audio swamis. The cheapo system is cheap only by comparison -- about 18k vs. 125k (and rising -- shit...This stuff isn't cheap, but I'm determined, and my money will outlast my decrepit old ass...).

So far, I am confused. The only general conclusion I can draw is that the Tara favors solid state (I have 1 solid state system in Tahoe -- Levinson -- and 2 tube systems -- Cary and VTL). I have chosen about a half-dozen LP's and CD's to focus on.

As I said, Michael, Sam, Art, and (soon to be, I suspect), Stephen have earned my respect for enduring this filthy passion, this obsession with nuance.

This is not meant as a tease. I just have trouble listening to "sound," while listening to music was all I ever wanted to do.

More later.

DUP, I don't give a good damn what it is LIKE, what IS it? If I want a simile, I'll find a poet.

DUP, whenever I hear from you, my exurburance knows no bownds. Hell, I want to go beyond the exurbs, to the vairables, where angles sing.

Sit tight. I'll be back. Rember the Maine. Or the Alamo. I have to go, love. Her ASS is uming, and the universal grommet is (sorry, EE) internally expanding and externally contracting, awaiting my, er, arrival. Kisses.

Unfortunately, DUP, the quasi-vacuum achieved by Mr. Bond at Tara, by his own admission, merely simulates the thin air at 12,000 feet.

If somebody could simulate the space between your ears, now that would be a pure vacuum and a perfect dialectric. Hmmmm. Say, DUP, you wouldn't, um, consider donating your head to science would you? It would be such a small sacrifice, considering the joy you could bring to millions of audiophiles everywhere.

Thanks, Stephen. I tried to post my final opinions yesterday but was apparently too verbose -- when I hit the final button, the dreaded "This format is no longer valid" came up and I couldn't save it. 45 minutes wasted. Why stop there? I proceeded to get wasted, myself. After some serious rehab, here I am again. I will do it in a couple of smaller installments, to match the attention spans of the format police.

My system consists of VTL pre and power amps (the 7.5 and the MB 450), Cary pre and power amps (the SLP 05 and the CAD 805), for tubes (which I prefer). I use the Mark-Levinson ML 326 S and ML #436 when I want to leave things on all day.

My speakers are the original Triangle Magellan models, not the newer ones Sam reviewed a few months ago. They are incredibly easy to drive, as Sam noted a couple of years ago, and this may have influenced why some of my conclusions were different than Michael's.

My analog system consists of the VPI Super Scout TT/arm combo, and I am currently using the Benz-Micro Ruby and the new LP Ebony (which isn't quite broken in yet).

Digital is dCS and the new Esoteric (which, at 1/3 the price, I prefer in many ways).

I have a Running Springs power conditioner (and a dedicated line -- 20A I believe), with AQ, Synergistic Research, and Cardas power cords (this latter category spans all price ranges, and the cheap ones sound just as good as the expensive ones, although "cheap" is a relative term, here).

My current wire is all Audio Quest. Sky interconnects, Everest speaker cable. My tuner, the Fanfare FT-1A, didn't figure into the testing. I have an older FM Acoustics phono stage (it cost about 6 grand, new) and the Aesthetix tube model. I prefer the FM Acoustics, strangely, since I usually prefer tubes over solid state.

The room is Chalet-like, with vaulted ceilings that range from about 9 feet to about 12 feet. It is about 25' X 35' and "live," due to minimal furnishings. The best sound treatment I have found has been the Argent Acoustic Lens. I use 5 of those.

Okay. That probably uses up my time. I'll be back with my conclusions, for whatever they are worth.

Cheers, all.

Here is the second installment. Once burned, twice cautious. I hope nobody thinks I am trying to be dramatic or feign self-importance. I am merely trying to get everything posted without wasting time and patience.

This is what I listened to. Most of it is analog, since my best home music is in that format. I listened mostly to full orchestral (so-called "classical" -- in The Sense of a Classic, Frank Kermode argued that a classic was any work of art that could be accomodated into modern schema, further and further into contemporary contexts, as time proceeds) music that I hear constantly in live concerts, usually at Disney Hall, but in other venues as well.

I listened to a lot of Mahler. My favorite Mahler recordings are the Jascha Horenstein 3rd (Nonesuch analog), the Reiner 4th (RCA analog), the Walter 9th (Columbia analog -- I sent one of these to Michael a couple of years ago, but I don't even know if he received it...), and the Bernstein 2nd (Columbia, the one with Christa Ludwig). Another favorite of mine is the Britten Young Person's Guide (mercifully, without a narrator), on London, conducted by the composter. Also, the Stravinsky ballets, conducted by the composer, on Columbia. Also, George Szell's magnificent Tchaikovsky 5th (Epic), as well as his Beethoven "Eroica." And several Ormandy Tchaikovsky symphonies. This is what I love, what overwhelms me at live concerts, and any home system changes, to be valid, have to get me closer to my memories of this music.

Jazz. The great MoFi reissue of Blues in Time, originally on Verve. A lot of Pablo -- Basie's "88 Basie Street," "The Gifted Ones," and "Basie Jam" (from the Montreux Festival -- the one with "Lester Leaps in" -- 20+ minutes of sheer exuberance). Also, "Take 5" and several Lionel Hampton LP's from the '60's.

I fear my time is running out. CD's next.

Again, I apologize for dribbling this thing out, but it is the only way I can think of for actually recording this onerous task for public consumption.

Cheers, all.

Whenever possible, I tried to duplicate performances that I had recently heard, usually at Disney Hall. Thus, some of the CD's I used a lot were Il Giardino Armonico's recordings of Vivaldi and Teleman, since I attended 2 live concerts with that group performing over the past year. I listened to Andrew Davis' Enigma Variations (Elgar), since I recently heard that piece at Disney. Also various Brahms First Symphony performances, as well as the Brahms First Piano Concerto. I told you all that this is the most difficult thing I ever tried, concerning audio -- ever tried listening to Brahms, over and over, for 3 hours? Still, even though the venues and performers were often different, I felt an underlying advantage from having heard these pieces live. I also used the Haitink Shostakovitch 14th Symphony, a Decca CD that is just stunning in its realism, since I attended a live performance of that piece just last Winter.

Other classical CD's included just about everything Jordi Savall ever recorded, from Purcell to Boccherini, from Carlos V to Anthony Holborne. I have a nigh-perfect CD (originally issued by Chandos, but I bought it through the Musical Heritage Society) of Neeme Jarvi and the Detroit Symphony performing the Tchaikovsky Orchestral Suites. This is a 2-CD set that presents the most realistic (in musical timbres and soundstaging) orchestral sound I have ever heard in my room, on CD.

Finally, since I do occasionally listen to pop, I listened to the superb, and I do mean superb, disc that Stephen Mejias sent me of his band, the Multi-Purpose Solution. This is FAR and away the most enjoyable pop recording I own, in sonics and quality of the lyrics (VERY original poetic images, with instrumentals that always work in tension with the personae presented by the poems) -- this makes Meatloaf and The Band look cliched and dull in comparison. True, these are different genres, but pop is pop, and most of the stuff I own is slicked-down and faked out, pretending profundity while drowning in its own bathos. Stephen and his pals are a very talented group, folks.

Next time, the listening. Cheers, all.

History. This is important. Not my history, since I am not a professional reviewer, but yours -- who you are and what you want. You can't get the most out of your system if you don't know who you are, and you sure as hell can't criticize others' opinions without examining your own bases.

My first high fidelity system was waiting for me when I returned from Viet-Nam. I had ordered it in Hong Kong, while on R&R. Altec Lansing A-7's, and Marantz electronics --all tubes, just when Scott and Fisher transistors were becoming the rage. The #1 rated preamp (model 7? I can't remember), and the #1 rated monoblocks. And the tuner. A Dual turntable with the obligatory Shure cartridge. I hooked it up with those skimpy red-and-black RCA's that come in the box, and 20-guage zip cord. It was spectacular but unsatisfying. The massed violins didn't sound right. It was honky and piercing. I read and read, and asked around. My friends thought I was crazy -- they thought it was transcendent. A dealer told me to try 12-guage wire. No help. That is when I first learned rule 1: no peripherals can make bad speakers sound good. BETTER, maybe, but not good.

Flash forward 20 years. In 1985, I bought the B&W 801's, by far the most satisfying home speakers I had ever heard. As I walked out of the store, the dealer said, "Try this speaker cable -- it's only 50 bucks." It was Monster Cable. I hooked up my heavy zip cord first, and it sounded great. A couple days later, I notice the big, copper colored Monsters, still in the package, and thought, "why waste 50 bucks -- I'll take them back." So I called the store and the guy said, "Look, try them -- I'll refund your money even if the package is opened." Wow. Much clearer. More music. More brassy brass and more dynamic bass.

When I bought the Mirage M1-si speakers in 1995, they didn't sound as good at home as they had at the dealer's. He gave me some Tara Labs cables to try. Interconnects and speaker cables. My first real interconnects. More improvement. More definition. More spatial cues. More contrast. MUCH more transparency. Instruments sounded more separated, like you hear live. I couldn't believe my ears. Another $1500 bucks. I shook my head in disbelief that I was actually forking over the price of a decent amplifier for a bunch of wire. But I loved the sound.

Two years later, I noticed I was becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the Mirage bass. I loved everything else, but a lot of my recordings just weren't tolerable. Enter the Audio Quest Lapis X3, and the Argent speaker cables. Bi-wired. MUCH better. Another 2 grand. Sigh.

So. Cables DO make a difference. And expensive ones usually sound better than cheap ones. They can't fix a lousy system, but they sure as hell can improve one you already like.

Up to now, I have always just played an hour or so of music, when testing a new component (including cables), then taken a 10-minute break, then put in the new stuff and played the same music again. Any differences I can remember are worth pursuing. Any that I can't, aren't. Switching back and forth, 5 minutes at a time, just confuses me. I just want more music, to get closer to my memory of live.

Okay. That's it. You know what equipment I used, what music I played, and how I approached the whole thing. Finally, I get to tell you my reaction to these super-expensive cables, but tomorrow. I feel I'm on the clock and I want to get this posted. Besides, there's a game on the tube.

Cheers, all.

Erratum. I just noticed that, in paragraph 3, I alluded to the version of Britten's Young Person's Guide that I listened to as being "...conducted by the composter." Obviously, I meant, "composer." Somehow, though, "composter" makes sense. I wish I had the wit to do this stuff on purpose.

Here is what I remember hearing.

Timbre. The Tara interconnects were consistently more "burnished," or rounder. With no loss of transparency. This is quite an achievement. There was no sense of highs being pushed into the background, or of murkiness. But there was definitely a slightly more lush texture to all of the music with the Tara wire. However, I preferred this timbre only with software that was definitely at the lean, spare, wiry, or even grating extreme. The DG Bernstein Mahler 2nd (digital) is a bit harsh, and the Tara wire flattered this disc in a way that made me prefer it over the AQ. On the other hand, many Phillips and London CD's have a murky sound. I preferred the AQ's on software that lived in this extreme. In the great middle, concerning software, the two cables simply offered two different perspectives. Neither was preferable, in terms of bringing me closer to memories of the live event. Both were transparent and grainless, but when I listened to those CD's and LP's that occupied the "bright" and "dull" extremes, I preferred one over the other depending on the timbres recorded onto the CD's. The AQ's generally favored my tube amplifiers; the Tara definitely favored the Levinson solid-state equipment. Neither emerged as a favorite, in terms of analog vs. digital.

These same conclusions held in terms of genre. I enjoyed classical, jazz, and pop equally on all recordings, with a favorite emerging only at, again, the bright and murky extremes. Stephen's group sounded slightly better, to me, with the AQ's, but it has a kind of burnished, rounded texture to it (which I love -- most pop recordings are like needles through the brain). Don't get me wrong. The Tara was fine here, too, and the differences were too subtle for me to ultimately give a shit.

Space. On the Tchaikovsky Orchestral Suites recording, there is a definite "hole in the middle," in terms of soundstaging. You definitely want to hear more from the middle-to-rear of the soundstage. When I heard this live, last year (different orchestra, different venue from the recording), I was shocked to notice this same phenomenon at the live event. The AQ presents this sense accurately. The Tara "fills" in the center stage. The Tara is more fun to listen to, the AQ more accurate. I tried this drunk and sober. I tried it loud and soft, night and day, and so on. It drove me nuts. I have no idea how to explain it.

When I heard Il Giardino Armonico in a live performance this year, I was surprised at how "bunched together" the sound was. I had center seats, 12 rows back. Perfect. When I got home (my cheaper system, in my LA apartment) I put on a CD of the same group. Same deal, with my Lapis 3X/Argent wires, and Volante speakers. When I tried this disc with the 2 super-wires under discussion, the Tara, once again, was more expansive, the AQ truer to memory. I was flummoxed, because I liked the Tara better, in my living room. So much for the "live" music purist act, eh?

Noise and grain. No difference.

I can understand Michael's enthusiasm for this product. It is a superior achievement. If I had only solid-state electronics, I would buy it. But I preferred the AQ's with my tube gear, and there wasn't enough superiority in other performance areas for me to opt for the system change. In all fairness, I didn't have the Tara speaker wire, or the star-ground set up. Also, even though Michael's Wilson speakers are spec'd as being very sensitive, I am sure they are not as easy to drive as mine. I can blow out my walls with 50 watts. This may be a relevant factor, in terms of perceived noise and dynamics. I'll never know.

This entire audition drove me nuts. It wasn't fun, overall. Michael, Sam, Art, John, and all you other wonderful reviewers, I don't know how you guys do this month after month. It certainly is nice, now, just to go back to listening to music. Notice I didn't say anything about money. Economic decisions are personal. Both cables represent far better "value," to me, than, say, anything by Nordost, Siltech, or anyone else I have heard.

And, I thank you all for listening, and for your patience.

Stephen, Cheapskate, and Elk, thanks for the kind words. Cheapskate, your comment brings up a great embarassment -- I didn't include Wes Phillips in the thank-you list. He is, in many ways, my favorite music/music-playback writer. So, a separate, special tribute to Wes is now delivered. You did, however, pick up the main point. Look, when it comes to this stuff, I'm no virgin. I have been chasing the dream for 40 years. I have slalomed Bandini mountain. I have been screwed, blued, and tattooed, as the poet in the back room has written, in all things high-fidelity. I have ascended the heights of ecstasy and spent many nights in the toilet. I have wasted thousands, but I have also spent many thousands well, in this impossible quest. I am grateful for all the very good writers who have, somehow, managed to narrow the list from "impossible" to "doable," with no loss in scope. Now, that's a tough job.

On this site, I have watched as the insults flow, sometimes contributing to the overall rancor of the exchanges (who could resist?). Accusations of bias, bribery, and stupidity have been directed at the staff. Yet, they keep delivering, month after month, the same objective assessments -- I can tell you, listening is easy, but assessment and publication are different matters. Sure, they get paid for the hassle. But, I am quite certain that there are easier ways to make a living. It has to be more a labor of love than a quest for ego fulfillment. I am more convinced of that than ever, now.

Cheers, all, and happy tunes.

Fortunately, I wore my rain slicker and hat to the keyboard this afternoon. Another snotstorm sputtered from the DUPster, and it's a good thing I have Saran wrap to cover the electronics.

Dup, you're better at this than I am. The best I could conjure up is composters conducting, but you invoked reviewers demanetizing. I bow before the master.

Thanks, Clay, for the kind words. Mahler, for me, is the ultimate test. Sonically, he plumbs the depths and scales the heights like nobody else. Musically and spiritually, he goes further. I have never heard any component or combination of components that sounded right playing Mahler, and sounded lacking playing anything else -- jazz, pop, chamber, instrumental solo, or vocal solo. If the system can survive Mahler, it can survive anything.

As you mention, the only problem is, you keep getting lost in the music.

Once again, I declare my gratitude for all the good folks at Stereophile for listening and writing well. This has been happening to me for 40 years. My first reads of Stereophile were in the late '60's, when there was a dearth of realistic-sounding "kit" (as John Atkinson and Sam Tellig would say...), and everything was compromised. To get excellence in one area of the presentation, you had to suffer mediocrity or even failure in another. The magazine got it right then, and they have been getting it right since.

It really is a tough job, even though I am sure for all of them it is a labor of love. The toughest thing must be submitting your emotional biases to the intellectual pummeling of repeated analytical listenings, month after month after month. Music, as Wallace Stevens noted, is emotion, and the wire thread that coils between emotional fulfillment and judgmental analysis would rub me raw in less than a year.

Happy listening.