What does it take to qualify as a reviewer?

if you want to review for stereophile, you need to be the biggest bullshit artist that you can be, need to be able to always give a good review at the end no matter if you find flaws in it, and you need to justify the piece as being the best that you have heard in your system, even if your system has changed dramatically since you last reviewed something similar. Make sure you have a thesaurus handy to modify words that are simple to emphasize your review.

What does it take to qualify as a reviewer?

Since your question was asked in seriousness, I'll give a serious anwer rather than a "tongue in cheek" response.

In an ideal world to qualify as a reviewer one should:

1. Be a music lover
2. Have good hearing
3. Have years of experience hearing, owning, and using audio gear ranging from average consumer level to the high end
4. Be a competent writer
5. Possess some technical knowledge of audio equipment: how it is built, the circuitry, build quality, as well as the language, jargon, and lexion of audio
6. Know the industry inside and out
7. Have a committment to objectivity in a very subjective field
8. Have a sense of humor
9. Be an advocate for the consumer-audiophiles (I said this is the ideal world!)

to add to Foster's list

to attend live concerts on a regular basis would help

IMO of course...

I think Rbstehno got it with "need to be able to always give a good review at the end no matter if you find flaws in it." I mean, how many times have we finished a review with a few mentioned "limitations" of the component only to end at the last paragraph with some unequivocal recommendation that this is a "great deal," or an "I could live with it in my system," blah blah...? It seems disingenuous on the part of the reviewer. But afterall, reviews should be read for entertainment value. In the end the only, and often impracticle way to assess, is via up close and personal listening...in your own system.

Most car salesmen have the skills to be audio reviewers !!!!!