Honesty of the Reviewers

Detlof, you raise some good points and I appreciate your response. As you noted, even the best and most respected reviewers are not immune to psychological hype and can occasionally make errors in their assessments. We are above all, human, and readers need to be aware of that aspect -- especially condidering how subjective most reviews are. Indeed, at times it's more akin to judging a poetry contest than related to science. That said, I've read many reviews that in my view accurately captured the review item's intrinsic character. :)

You see, my typo above, "condidering" -- just serves to illustrate that we reviewers are human. I wish Audiogon allowed one to edit his comments after posting! :)

You just need to appreciate that reviewers have two main incentives. First, they must have some credibility. Arguably, only enough for their target audience, but if they are ambitious they may wish their name (as opposed to the mag they work for) to stand for something. Second, they have to pay the mortgage like anybody else - ask yourself what conditions you have to place on your own integrity at your place of work. Just appreciate that they are neither altruists or public servants.

I think we have to look at ourselves in the mirror when asking questions of these reviewers. They're just feeding our habit and doing so eloquently. Haven't we spent time carefully listening and researching equipment, buying it taking it home and smiling ear to ear only to find out that something better just came out? And away we go again. I read the reviews to see what somebody with more dollars than cents can buy and occasionally to self-congratulate myself on a decision that I and the reviewer came to. I see reviewers as good authors who talk about stuff I'm obsessed with. Don't shoot the messenger.

I suppose there may be a dishonest reviewer or two out there, but I think the vast majority are honest, and their reviews are compromised only by their own belief systems and biases, same as you and me. I see no evidence that any of the buff mags are pimping for the big equipment makers, like the car buff mags do. Stereo Review, of course, if it still exists, is another story. I doubt anyone interested in this topic takes anything in that magazine seriously.

But, what motivated me to respond to this thread is the comment above that reviewers have to pay the mortgage. Except for the principals involved in the serious magazines and the internet mags, my impression is that most reviewers have day jobs. For example, my favorite reviewer (because he turned me on to my Harbeth Compact 7's), Robert Greene, is a math professor.

Now, there are editors and publishers whose livelihood depends on advertising revenue. Thus, I would be surprised to see really negative reviews in the buff mags. What purpose would that serve? Yet, for example, John Atkinson, wrote a very positive review of my Harbeth HL-P3's and later a very negative review of the Harbeth BBC LS5/12a's. (BTW, the P3's, like my Harbeth Compact 7's and all the current Harbeth speakers, were designed by Harbeth MD Alan Shaw and the 5/12a's are a BBC design). Now, Harbeth was never a big advertiser, and Ive never seen a bad review of a B&W, but still my impression is JA is a straight-shooter (quasi-anechoic chamber notwithstanding).

You also have to consider that except for speakers and mass market junk sold at the electronics emporia, most audio equipment nowadays is fairly priced, i.e, performance is about what you would expect for the price.