The more things change, the more they stay the same. The bashing of audio reviewers by audiophiles who are themselves wannabe reviewers; it’s been sport as long as there have been audiophiles. Out of control egos who are so convinced that it is in their opinions, and their opinions only, where truth can be found. These audiophiles always forget that there is, and always will be, no substitute for personal experience with a product. The usefulness of audio reviews is simply as guides to making a more informed buying decision; no more. This requires following a reviewer’s output in order to gain a good understanding of where the reviewer is coming from. One isolated review is of little value; context is key. For me, the ultimate value of reviews is determined not only by what the reviewer says (writes), but also by how he says it. Attitude counts for a lot in my book. So, speaking of attitude:
In this thread we have the comments of two reviewers with distinctly different attitudes. One comes on like a bull in a china closet lambasting a publication that has been at the forefront of this hobby much longer than most and insults the integrity of a specific reviewer for that publication. The other reviewer, the subject of this attack, responds in a gracious manner, explains his position and demonstrates reasonableness all the way around. Hmmm…… which of these two reviewers will I be most inclined to go to for, if not “truth”, a guide to help me make a more informed buying decision? A no brainer in my book.
Re the bull’s main (I think) criticism of the mentioned publication: He forgets (or is simply unaware of the fact) that since it’s inception, one of this publication’s main stated tenets has been to never base a review on comparisons to other products; only to the sound of music itself instead. That is where having “a good understanding of where the reviewer is coming from” comes in. Imagine that…a comparison to the actual sound of music. What a quaint proposition!
