Stereophile complains it's readers are too informed.

Stereophile seems pretty straightforward to me and they seem to be clear about their measurements. Of course, measurements can never tell the whole story and they're not a substitute for listening.

Stereophile is one of the few magazines that actually conducts its own measurements, so the OP's claim that the magazine "complains it's (sic) readers are too informed" just doesn't make sense. 

Agreed cleeds, intresting to see people “translate” what is said, into what they want it to say. I believe that’s actually the point of that last paragraph. That some people are using what they say and post, in a way that was not said, nor meant. There does seem to be a subset of the community who are biased towards certain views, and not open to any that don’t correspond to those. While some may not agree with a review or comment, they have no problem with someone who feels differently, but there is a group who it bothers greatly if anyone doesn’t acknowledge their views as the “correct” interpretation.

Right. Then to prove your point Erik posts a comment proving he does not understand a word of the article. There's nothing in there to support a word of what he says, but out of the way facts we got a narrative to push here! 😂

Stereophile seems pretty straightforward to me and they seem to be clear about their measurements. Of course, measurements can never tell the whole story and they're not a substitute for listening.

Yep, I like their measurements. I just feel that they should be contextualizing, and if they see an issue, go back to listening and explain if it mattered.

They are basically upset their readers are interpreting the measurements themselves. As I wrote in the comments section, providing data without context is often a road to disaster, especially at work.  If you do the measurements also provide the context, and follow up if anything sticks out.

From the article: " I admire Toole’s work, but I do not admire conformists who insist... that everything be judged by the same narrow criteria. "

I agree with writer Jim Austin.

Neither Floyd Toole nor his colleague Sean Olive claim that their measurements and analysis tell the whole story, though many mistakenly assume they do.

From one of Sean Olive’s landmark papers, A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preference Using Objective Measurements: Part II – Development of the Model:

"LIMITATIONS OF MODEL

"The conclusions of this study may only be safely generalized to the conditions in which the tests were performed. Some of the possible limitations are listed below.

"1. Up to this point, the model has been tested in one listening room.

"2. The model doesn’t include variables that account for nonlinear distortion (and to a lesser extent, perceived spatial attributes).

"3. The model is limited to the specific types of loudspeakers in our sample of 70."

Duke

@erik_squires I see your point, Erik. If I’ve got it right, you’re saying that because there is an influential standard out there by Toole, it would serve Stereophile and its readers if they simply included a sentence or two in any review where a speaker design is intentionally heterodox. This would help "locate" the decisions behind that speaker design. The best film reviewers do such things, too — very helpful.

@ebm

Who really cares what they think.

I’m new to the hobby relative to many here. Are you saying that Stereophile is *not* influential on other magazines, distributors, dealers, customers? Or that they should not be?