Kana813, I am often skeptical about reviewers' abilities to hear and describe in worthwhile ways, and am as critical as anyone of Stereophile's overall failure to live up to its potential as an enthusiast publication - a distinguishing trait matched only by its wildly disproportionate influence in the market. And neither to I share Onhwy61's optimism about the preponderance of 'rave' reviews.
But I am sick and tired of hearing the conspiracy theory that reviews are written for advertising dollars. Do I think the reviewers and the industry are too close? Without a doubt, and it negatively influences the quality of criticism. I even believe that there begins to be something like a quid pro quo as it regards reviewer access to gear over time. But it has never been shown that there is a quid pro quo when it comes to advertising expenditure, and it makes no sense that there would be. Why would any manufacturer who can afford it not advertise in Stereophile, no matter what the review said? These allegations are always - as in your case - offered up without a shred of proof. The suggestion that postive reviews are prearranged in exchange for ad purchases has never been substantiated in the slightest, yet many readers apparently take it for gospel. There are real reasons having to do with the mag's editorial direction that have a great deal to do with this situation, and their refusal to reform their reviewing practices and ratings system is a concern for impartial readers, but I don't believe they are financially corrupt in the manner you imply.
Besides which, regarding the Parasound JC 1 review, whatever credence you choose to give or not give to his conclusions, I think anyone who's read Fremer's writing for any length of time could never seriously accuse him of being in anyone's pocket or biting his tongue. He has zigged and zagged a bit over the years in the big picture, but in a natural way that just suggests a guy gaining experience and changing his preconceptions and priorities to some extent as he goes. I think he's basically honest, and a decently communicative writer (and even more entertaining). As far as Atkinson goes, yes, he's too swayed by his measurements, but at least his measurements are undoubtedly real, for whatever that's worth. He simply can't be in the lab faking it for ad dollars. Baseless accusations like yours are easy to make if you don't have to give any evidence. It might be fun to lob bombs from a safe distance, but it doesn't make a person wise or iconoclastic, just irresponsible and cowardly. Show me some proof, and I'll be more than willing to jump on the bandwagon, but 'til then I'll use my own good judgement and common sense.
