++++StereoPhile Class A components+++++

Good point Sean.
I've seen such reviews, where the designer actually went to the reviewer's house to repair, or -ahem- "upgrade" the component to a "higher" level.
Actually, if a player breaks down more than once on the reviewer, (or if it is not a good product) there are two opinions on what should happen:
- terminate the review process and send the designer back to the drawing board
- publish the results....but that would kinda' mean. It could kill a company off and effectively prohibit him from correcting the problem and having a good shot at making a living from selling a better quality product later.
It's not really a magazine's job to kill somebody, just to tell us if a product is worth auditioning. (even though we would really like to be warned)

I think you guys are missing some rather huge points with the Stereopile or other professional reviewers worth: Many of them have credentials which let one appreciate that they do in fact know what a particular track should sound like, as they where either in the studio behind the mastering board or even playing an instrument on their demo material used to review new gear with. I respect the reviewers with these credentials more then I do any Joe Blow who comes to this or any other audio site with their prep-school vocabulary and fat bank accounts from their silver spoon background, which can fool themselves and others into believing that they are somehow in the know. A further fact is that pro reviewers get to play with more gear in a month that even neurotic audiophiles will play with in a year, if not their lifetimes for most. We need "experts," without these professionals there would be nothing but subjective and ego driven conjecture (some of which we see here above), there probably wouldn't even be a hobby as the average audiophile just doen't have the time, money or energy to do for themselves what pro reviewers do for them. I'm not saying one should take the reviews as gospel, nor should one disregard personal tastes for "correctness" or a neutral presentation, but to brush off the worth of pro reviews and rakings is pretty short sighted, me thinks....

Socrates, some "pro" reviewers know what they write about, some don't. Just sticking with Stereophile, John Atkinson, for example, certainly knows his subject. Others are "pros" only because they are fun to read and somehow someone has paid them for what they have written, not because they have any relevant knowledge. There are more and more of these guys now, especially with the ezines.

Stereophile has in the last few years adopted an unfortunately misleading editorial policy with regard to its recommended list. They used to say that a recommendation required measurements or at least full reviews. Recently they have said that the recommendation of two writers is sufficient, and yet they include components in the recommended list that only "Sam Tellig" has reviewed. Even if you add someone else who has heard and recommends these components, all you add is another incompetent opinion. Why do I say that? Well, I am reminded every April and October of what he said in his review of the Kimber Silver Streak interconnect: "It's secret? Only the signal-carrying portion of the braid is silver - the returns are copper." If Kimber figured out how to get the signal to behave in that fashion, that is certainly still a secret.

Golden_ears wrote: "Actually, if a player breaks down more than once on the reviewer, (or if it is not a good product) there are two opinions on what should happen: - terminate the review process and send the designer back to the drawing board - publish the results....but that would kinda' mean."

You do not state which opinion is yours but the latter is Stereophile's policy. All failures, adjustments, returns and replacements are to be fully reported. Termination of the review process would deprive the reader of that valuable information. Don't you agree?

I have to agree with Kal, Sean - Stereophile has bored me to tears many times, as they must do on such occasions, with their detailed accounts of equipment failure and what it took to repair/circumvent the situation. Obviously, there's no way for the reader to know for sure that all of the reported incidents equal all the actual incidents, but given the extent of what's been printed in the mag through the years, there's really no reason for anyone to doubt that they're reporting everything worth mentioning.

As far as the manufacturer personally coming to a reviewer's home to make a fix - or to provide the even more common rendering of set-up assistance - you can legitimately argue those questions both ways, but I can understand the magazine's affirmative policy on this activity as a practical matter, and again, the evidence would seem to indicate that they always disclose such assistance to the reader. But: Does this practice run the risk of unduly influencing the reviewer's opinions (for either better or worse)? I think it certainly can, or at the very least it raises questions of appearances. The most effective way around that issue would probably be the termination of the whole manufacturer gear loan policy - something which could carry many advantages in theory, but which in practice the mags have always claimed they can't afford to do. Whether or not one believes that this claim always rings true - what with the advent of Audiogon among other factors - is another topic.

However, I have a very hard time understanding Stereophile's and the others' condoning of the practice of manufacturers wining and dining reviewers, separate checks or no, you-pay-this-time I-pay-next-time included. It's already impossible to prevent reviewers from being long-time acquaintances of various industry players (and reviewers ought to recuse themselves from covering gear manufactured by such 'friends') - the least the mags could do is draw the line on reviewers junketing around the world to be entertained by company heads. They could send non-reviewing reporters to cover stories on companies and factories, and limit the reviewers to the more impersonal interactions they maintain are necessary to conduct fair and informative reviews.