Reviewing the Reviewers

Slawney, "excercis(ing) influence" requires acceptance on the receiving end, IMO. i.e., it takes two to tango... one giving advice or expressing opinion, and another to listen, acknowledge, "intelligently". I think this isn't always the case.
It seems to me we have a dichotomy in the reactions to opinion (in form of reviews or other) even among seasoned audiophiles sometimes.
1) "Rational" reaction, that takes a stated opinion and tries to understand the parametres upon which the stated opinion is based, and accepts, rejects, or simply acknowledges a subjective experience ("opinion") stated by another person.
2) Emotional reaction, where the receiving end *indentifies self* with equipment or person reviewing equipment. We've seen posts that could be paraphrased as "what do you mean, *MY* amplification of choice is no good, those (MY) speakers are terrible???" Likewise, with one reviewer's credibility vs. another's, worse still (IMO), for newcomers who would give credence to a well published and thereby known reviewer and disregard *USERS* opinion. In this case, disillusionment seems unavoidable.
More so, since common sense easily evidences the commercial limitations imposed upon and followed by mags. In order to pay but lip service to the mags' obvious profit pursuits, there *must* be an emotional side that shroudes reality.

If not, then what is it?

Greg, remember the old Latin phrase "degustibus non est disputandum " ? One man's heaven (speaker, cable, what have you) is another man's hell. So even the most rational of statements in our field here, will most probably be met with an emotional response. The so called objectivists, who in fact are the most subjective amongst us here, try to cheat themselves (and us for that matter) out of this dichotomy, by maintaining, that most of what we hear is but a figment of our imagination anyway. To my mind, if we refuse to fall into that trap, we must learn to live with the dichotomy you mention, which in fact will become less and less difficult to bear, if we learn to accept, that most of us here will voice and shape their systems according to what their ears will tell them is "best", or at least approaching it and I suppose that there are as many "bests" out there as there are audiophiles around, who at this point in time happen to be happy with their systems. I've noticed, that the most seasoned amongst us will tell us about their systems and describe its musicality but will only get emotional if derided or hard pressed. They still tend to experiment and occasionally upgrade, but I would venture the guess, that they stick to their stuff longer than a relative newcomer with means. Also I've never heard them say that this or that gear is "best". If you haven't had the time to mature in the fairyland of audiophilia however, you tend to look for what is "best" and do so with much emotion involved. Its the mags, which tend to feed and accelerate this, because they have to find a new list of "bests" everytime they bring out a new issue. Nobody would read them, if they would not do so. They would bore us all stiff.
At the same time, they tell us, that when all is said and done, even the "best of best" will never approach the "absolute sound of real music in real space and time".
In peddling "best" in every issue, hinting that this month's "best" is most probably just a step closer to the real thing, than last month's, but at the same time maintaining, that the real best can only be real live music, they feed us what is called a double bind in psychology, which at best,( pun intended) will emotionalize us , at worst, drive us nuts and make us bust budgets in the process. It is also the mother of addiction. It is in this double bind, where to my mind the actual poison lies hidden, not in our suspicion, that the mags could possibly be corrupt. How to avoid it? Well, perhaps we should not entirely, because it nourishes the fire, underlying our quest for beauty. But too big a dose of it will make us restless, disatisfied, never content how "it sounds", because there might be something "better" just around the corner. My personal solution to this problem has evolved but slowly through the years: I've learnt neither to trust nor to mistrust the statements reviewers make, because I don't see any objectivity in them anyway, neither will I in mine or in anybody else's in fact. I've learnt, that there is neither a "best" in systems, nor an absolute truth in describing them. I've learnt, that I have my own tastes as far as musical software as well as hardware is concerned. In the course of time I've built a system just following my own ears and trying to voice and shape it in the way I wanted it to sound. To me its "best" emotionally, rationally I know that there are better around. I will read and listen to keep informed, I will experiment, as I do with the Bybee stuff right now, but there is a hardware foundation to my rig, which is neither the latest, nor the most expensive, which I know I will never change, because it comes closest to what in my mind and soul I find is musical. Newcomers to our field, I find, should be told of those basic rules which exist to make a system sound better.
They should be sent to as many live musical events as possible, to have a tertium comparationis between the sound of their system and the ideas of sound they have in their minds about how a system should make music. They should read the mags, but with the attitude of a sportscar enthusiast, who knows that reading about how a Porsche handles, will reflect the journalists experience, but not the feeling he himself will have, when he has his behind in the driver's seat, but above all he should learn to understand, that there is no "best", nor ever will be. If that is achieved, you're out of this double bind I mentioned before and if reviewers are music lovers of independent mind and soul or capitalism's slaves becomes a point of little or no consequence and the dichotomy wich Greg has pointed out so well, is just the "both sides of the same coin". Speaking of coins: just my two cents, sorry I was so long. Cheers to all,

Detlof notes: "I've built a system just following my own ears and trying to voice and shape it in the way I *wanted it to sound*"(my emphasis). Which begs the question: HOW does each one of us like music reproduction? Laid back? Bass articulate? Dynamic? Pace & rythm? etc. A useful point when relating to others' opinion, and extremely useful for newcomers to this hobby, maybe.

I, for one, like transient attack, dynamics, and passion. Listening to music is an "interactive experience": I catch myself speaking to the (imaginary) musicians while listening to my system... I like to hear the sudden bursts in intensity -- SPL *and* the emotion / energy this belies.
A friend tells me, he can't enjoy sitting back with my system; the moment he relaxes, a burst kicks him out of the chair.

I fully subscribe to Detlof's proposition regarding the benefits of experiencing "...as many live musical events as possible". And that "best" is largely a subjective notion, and time/experience-related, at that. Indeed, Detlof, de gustibus non est disputandum!
And yet, disputes are sometimes the name of the game!

Still on topic, I think. What reviewer's judgment do you trust? I like Fremer's writings, especially on music, even if I do not like his business ethics.

I trust Rob Reina, Kal, Jack English, for a long reach backward Kent Birdsong of the Hi Fi Heretic, never trusted j-10 or Gindi.

Just curious.

phild, if you're still around: thanks for that post. i've just spent hours going through that site. amazing!