Why no reviews of the Magnepan 3.7 in Stereophile

There is an article by the famous American phylosopher
Quine entitled 'On what there is'. The question is about
inpenetrable phylosphical issue of 'ontology'. But to know
'what there is' in our hobby we need at least some HI-FI
Magazine. Or so I thought. To know what to check or listen
to we need the names of the products and the names of the manufacturers. This to me is of more importance than the opinion of whatever reviewer. The same apply for me for the forums. If, for example, Halcro never mentioned AT 7V
how should I know what to look for? But in casu even the name was not sufficient. I needed the address of some dealer also. I am glad to have asked for.

Regards,

Tmsorosk, the reviews of the 3.7 that I've seen imply that it has superb rather than poor dispersion, better than the 3.6. The narrow ribbon tweeter inherently has almost perfect dispersion characteristics. I'm guessing that Magnepan improved the dispersion of the midrange using techniques similar to those they used on to improve the dispersion of the quasi ribbon tweeter on the 1.7's. And they don't want to let that technological cat out of the bag. But whatever the reason, I don't have any reason to disbelieve their explanation. Bass extension is presumably going to be similar to that of the 3.6's, and everybody knows that they don't go particularly deep, besides which the subjective reviews have all pointed out the limitations in bass response. So I don't see any reason to hide that; bass slam and extension are one area in which dynamic woofers have a distinct advantage over planar dipoles. That being said, near field measurements of dipoles tend to exaggerate the bass response, sometimes grotesquely. They don't have much of a bearing on what you actually hear in your room.

Reading these posts, it seems that many of you think reviewers are on 'the take,' as it were.
I wrote for TAS, was the Equipment Manager for Fi Magazine and wrote again for UltraAudio.com.
There was no 'take,' on any of my reviews. Nor are there any on HP's reviews or a large majority of the TAS writers. I knew several of them. The reviews are honest. How so many of you can allow yourselves to speculate endlessly - and with no evidence - is pretty disgusting. HP may make mistakes, but he reviews what he hears, but his ears are his reputation. Same with JV and Neil Gader and Fred Kaplan, when they wrote for TAS. John Nork and Cordesman: beyond even thinking they would write other than what they heard.
Has it occurred to you that reviwers worry that others won't hear what they hear and call them frauds? I wrote a review of the Hurricanes on Ultraaudio and someone wrote to ask me if I didn't find the ASL Hurricanes "smeared." I thought, "What????? Is he high?!?!" Those amps are in no way smeared. HOWEVER, when I moved them to a smaller room (13 x 20) from a larger one (23 x 45), they did not have the absolute realism they had in the larger room. I still have them 10 years later, and am putting them back in the larger area (in the basement) when spring comes, just so my friends can hear the difference between the two rooms. in the larger room, they sounded so alive, that after 20 years of listening to components, I was instantly dazzled and I hadn't even made it back to the listening chair.
Now, I also heard these at Lyric Hi-Fi, one of the most venerable of audio salons. i can tell you it was a dismal failure, and only my belief in HP made me acquire them months later. And they sounded every bit as real as he said, and, i assure you, i did NOT have Nola Grand References. I had Hales Revelation 3s, but I'd had several amps on them and it was like going from a propeller plane to an F-16. No lie here whatsoever.
So, if you KNOW what you're talking about and you KNOW reviewers who took money for reviews (the idea that a reviewer did a good review so the manufacturer would advertise is stupid: we get NOTHING out of it, and were never, ever told to write a good review in order to generate income).
As my late mother would say, when her nieces and nephews would say they hated broccoli/spinach/green beans, or whatever, "Have you eaten them before?Invariably, the response was "No." I knew to duck, 'cuz I KNEW the exact wording that would fly out of her mouth: "if you haven't tasted them, you don't know what you're talking about, you stupe (stupid person), so shut your mouth."
I detest the petty speculation about dishonest reviewers and how we all do it to get the manufacturer to advertise. i knew Dave Wilson, Luke Manley, Mr. Nudell, and others, and owned their products long BEFORE I ever became a reviewer. They wouldn't even DREAM of suggesting a good review in order to advertise. They didn't need to: their products spoke for themselves, good review or not.
Kindly shut it, unless you have proof of this. Writing an accurate review is what gives us credibility. Missing obvious flaws diminishes it, and in the industry, that's a death rattle if you want to review someone's products, and they say, "Aren't you the guy who said so-and-so's speaker had a suckout in the mid bass??? Uh, no, thank you, I don't think we'll be providing you with samples." And you are dead - and usually fired. ESPECIALLY from TAS.

Advertisement can morph easily into bias and even bribery. Equipment held over for personal use is unethical at best. Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

"Advertisement can morph..."
I'd make that "Advertisement could morph" unless someone has proof. The brain has a nasty habit of "knowing" stuff it couldn't possibly know, and we all need to keep a close watch on what it is coming up with.