This thread is bogging down a bit, so I'll inject this, just to crank it up a bit :)
First off, (and I really don't intend this as a personal attack, but as info that readers should know) "Samuel" is not just a Maxx2 owner, but is an industry insider defending industry insiders. If I may quote him from an older thread for clarification, "I am a former consumer, reviewer and now marketing and sales person for a company that manufacturers, among other things, power cords". I don't know who he works for, but he hasn't mentioned perchance if they advertise in these magazines or benefit from the same reviewers he's defending.
Second, to talk "journalism" of sorts -
Samuel accurately says that reviewers are "are accountable for their opinions." Of course. But to who? To me and you? Not likely. Name a writer that got into trouble because the "public" didn't agree with yet another glowing review.
Many Audio mags are obviously not bothered by the ethical standards of traditional journalism. Washington Post reporters aren't offered discounts on Corn Flakes when General Mills gets a review of a new cereal. Ted Koppel doesn't interview Advertising Executives who decide, in turn, how much to spend at ABC next year. Consumer Reports, unquestionably, the most successful and useful "Review" publication ACCEPTS NO ADVERTISING at all.
The audio mags have a good thing going, and they do it as cleverly as possible. None of this is new, and they're aware of the persistent public suspicion over the buddy-buddy nature of the industry and the various "accomodations". So of course they throw in "weaknesses", "context", and measurements, etc. and the advertisers understand the unfortunate need for it - because otherwise the mags would be a laughing stock. But they finesse their way around any "negatives" a la JA's summary at the end of the Maxx2 measurements.
Ask yourself this - how often have you seen a straightforward recommendation NOT to buy a frequent advertiser's component, or to buy a competitor's product since it's sonically equal, but a much better value.
Perhaps more telling - how often do you see reviews of chronic NON-advertisers. You haven't seen many reviews of Tyler Acoustics, Oris Hornspeakers, Grounded Grid amplifiers, Granite Audio, Eclipse TD's by Fujitsu (amazing), and many others, now have you. Hmmmmm.... These are all strong companies with excellent products at attainable prices, and decent customer bases, that don't advertise and don't get the quid pro quo reviews.
The reason that these types of companies are so rarely "reviewed" has been asked of Stereophile repeatedly. About a year ago John Atkinson responded with, "It basically comes down to my feeling that a) a product's manufacturer is real..." b) the component is one to which it is worth devoting some of the magazine's always limited space.
Quite obviously these products are very worth devoting space to, and people would be thrilled to know about them, so it comes down to who they consider a "real" manufacturer. I think I have a pretty good idea what the criteria for "real" is.
Or how about articles on great vintage equipment (not necessarily cheap, either) that blows away newer stuff. Would that be helpful to readers? Is that not of major interest to most audiophiles. But you won't see it. BECAUSE, FACE IT, THAT'S NOT WHY THE AUDIO MAGS ARE THERE.
I don't think Stereophile (as an example) is evil, but I don't think they care less about journalistic theory practice. They have a great business and they do what's best for themselves - that's capitalism. And I'm not anti-captalism. I'm anti Naivism.
A real review with journalistic intent, that a Washington Post reporter, might write would point out that:
1. The Maxx2's are hella fun to listen to and to admire, but they are NOT nearly as "accurate" at reproducing the source signal as many other speakers, according to Stereophile's own AND other independent measurements and/or as an example:
2. At 1/3 of the retail price, Tyler Woodmeres, using very similar quality components, meticulous build quality, and even sporting a similar D'Appolito High/Mid configuration with 2 woofers for the bottom end, may be an alternative to consider.
Is a review that doesn't bring up those possibilities closer to Journalism or closer to Touting?
The three allowable comparisons/cliches that you WILL see in audio reviews because they won't offend anyone in the industry are:
1. THIS component "approaches" the quality of ones costing 50% more.
2. THIS component is much better than the similar DISCONTINUED model.
3. THIS component is UNDERSTANDABLY better (in certain ways) than a cheaper one from the same manufacturer.
(And I do believe we've seen all three in this thread.)
That's it for me - my wife is gonna kill me if I spend any more time on this one!
