"...and I don't take any advertiser money..."

One thing to consider is when reviewing HEA, there are rarely objectively "bad" products to review. It's a competition for preferences above a certain quality threshold. So regardless of the incentives, it's easy to say good things about good things. Individual reviewer credibility is in the eye of the viewer/reader. 

The ones who are more suspect are the "high end for less" folks. They may have an incentive to hype lesser products for financial gain. Or they might have good tips. Buyer beware. 

Everytime I get a new issue of an audio magazine, I look at the last paragraph and everyone of them has a glowing review of the piece, best sound ever, highly recommended, my system has never sounded better. Every issue, every month. I subscribe to keep current on new products.

I’m assuming magazines get paid from doing reviews, maybe not directly but in advertising. Reviewers on YouTube have had to confess that they got paid for a review. I’ve heard magazine reviewers get a hefty discount if they buy the product they are reviewing. There is 1 guy on YouTube that bashes every manufacturer and dealer about them being corrupt or this and that, but he wants you to believe that his products are the best there is, so IMO, he is no different than any of the other dealers.

Why do you think a company won’t advertise if they get a bad review? Do all the car magazines claim every car they review is the best? Never! Most car magazines do the best sports car, the best truck, or car of the year where they will rate 2, 3,5,20 vehicles and will rate each 1, the pros and cons, and eventually will call 1 a winner, runner up, 3rd place, and on down. These reviews are much better so if I’m looking at a sports car for $200k, I can look at a few magazines that will show which is the best and for what reasons. If I wanted to spend $100k on speakers, which magazine can you point me too that gives me an idea which is the best for my money over the 10 other speakers in the price range?

Erin Audio on YouTube

Excellent comparison rbstehno and fully agreed. Stereophile does a much better job than the Absolute Sound in this regard with John Atkinson’s testing of equipment at least for what test results are worth. The reviewers often try a few different speakers w/ an amp or a few amps w/ a reviewed speaker which can be somewhat informative but rarely if ever do they directly compare another similarly priced item to the one in question which of course could very useful & informative.

Obviously these magazines have significant operational expenses that I’m sure are predominately covered by the advertising dollars & not the $2 or so we pay for them w/ a subscription but the car mags probably have a similar scenario & manage to be much more honest in the low points of a reviewed car & in head to head comparisons. What’s up w/ that??

I don’t have an issue with a publication requiring a manufacturer advertise with them before agreeing to review a product. The "audio community" is essential for the survival of the industry and the manufacturer would be making a good faith commitment to sustain a viable means of communication -- the publication. The publication is, undoubtedly, providing a service that will have a financial impact (positive OR negative) on the manufacturer, and they should be willing to invest in that ":strategy" and not be a free-loader. That being said, the reviewer needs reveal to the manufacturer upfront that the reviewer’s personal and professional integrity is on the line, and they are not going to say good things about a company that just copied the Titanic, complete with hole already in it, and heading out to sea. There is a real risk to the manufacturer of stripping down in front of a reviewer and showing what they got. They should know that upfront.

One statement that really bugs me is: "non commissioned salespeople." The greatest level of service you’d expect from an establishment would be from the owner(s). This is the definition of "financial interests" in that no one in the company has a greater incentive to "make a sale that day" than the owners. The assumption here is that the owners have the highest level of knowledge, integrity and place customer service as a high priority. Yes, a commission salesperson certainly wants to "make a sale that day" because they have bills to pay. That’s a given. But a professional salesperson is also looking down the road for add ons, repeat business, referrals, etc. Customer loyalty is a strong motivator because their very existence as an individual compensated by the success of their company depends on it. As someone said: "a 5% increase in customer loyality doubles the lifetime return on investment." So, it MUST be a win, win, win. A win for the salesperson (they sell stuff). A win for the company they work for (they sell stuff -- preferably at a price above what the dealer paid for it), and a win for the customer (receives excellent service and a fair exchange for monies spent).