Does anyone on AG truly care anymore about objectivity & sincerity of Magazine reviews?

IME with hifi gear now, most if not all of it is competently designed and manufactured, and therefore mostly differences come down to personal tastes and relative synergies that arise to one degree or another while a piece of gear is in a particular reviewer's setup.

Negative reviews are therefore uncommon not just because of bad faith potentially on the part of reviewers, but because truly crappy gear is uncommon now.

BTW there are some YouTube reviewers who combine subjective evaluations with measurements - I personally found these guys to be fairly reliable sources of information to cross reference my own listening impressions with.

I’ve never encountered a negative review in a magazine (I subscribe to Stereophile), but I have encountered them on YouTube, and they really get my attention when I do. Negative reviews are risky for the reviewer, not just getting sued from the manufacturer or losing out on the chance to review gear from other manufacturers; but also from the viewership side, I don’t think negative reviews are popular anyway. Negative reviews often tell more about the reviewer than the product. Some reviewers refuse, or choose, not to offer negative reviews, period.
Stepping back a bit, I consider the inclusion of comparison to similar products in a review as an effort to contribute some ‘objectivity’ to the review; I also look for key words like, ‘I liked thus and so’, or, ‘in my system xxx worked better’, etc., or even, ‘I heard thus and so’ as phrases tipping me off that what follows is a subjective ‘take’ on the product or its performance. I like to hear components revealed and discussed as another objective component of a review, as in what kind of transformer is used, how big, how many, etc, overall system design (delta sigma or resistor ladder), or particular design elements, like the use of capacitors in the signal path (or their removal), how one designer, or one manufacturer, employs a particular design element.
Basically, I evaluate a review, or reviewer, by how much, or how little, he or she answers the questions I have about the product under review. Some hit the mark pretty well, others miss it entirely. Test measurements are supposed to be objective data. But I think, on average, most reviewers, and most publications, understand their task to be reporting both objective facts and subjective opinions on what it is like to own and use a product. If they don’t at least try to do so, they don’t deserve my subscription.

@terry9 this isn't the forum for it, but there is a huge difference between "climate change" and making the assertion that it is caused by mankind contributing a very small change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The United States could disappear from the face of the Earth and the temperature of the Earth wouldn't change by any scientifically significant amount. 

A smart man a long time ago said if you want to know the truth about a situation for the most part, always, always, follow the money. 

All the planets of the solar system warmed in the last 50 years. There are no SUVs on Mars or Pluto. 

Scientific study is one thing, but using some poorly considered "conclusions" from that in order to funnel our tax money to the U.N. or make energy more expensive and to lower our standard of living is a pretty huge leap. 

I've followed this issue closely since the 1970s and have found enough scientific rebuttal against it to at least think it is a scam at best and perhaps mass hysteria at worse.

 

+1 @alan60, 'you have to read between the lines".  

@john1, have you ever owned YG speakers or heard them critically, with a great system?  I have owned Hailey 2.2s for a bit and they are outstanding; asstonishing resolution and clarity.  Comparing them to Paradigms?  Please....they hurt my ears.

A much more interesting conversation would be about YG selling and leaving the company, and their decisions since his departure.  After three YG bashings perhaps you should pick on another manufacturer.

+1 @terry9 

@moonwatcher  - you clearly have no idea how the scientific process works and all the checks and balances within the system to ensure junk science that only enriches the authors isn’t published. To compare that to the process for publishing audio equipment reviews is embarrassing.