The Impossible Has Happened

I understand, appreciate and wholeheartedly endorse the skepticism in this regard. However, there are some reviewers I've followed and read over the decades whose opinion(s) or evaluation(s) of stereo toys I've come to trust. Sometimes, I've read reviews prior to shopping for a piece of equipment and sometimes afterward. Yes, one should always be judicious about advertisers' influence on the overall picture. Regardless, I find it useful to use reviews simply to keep up with latest developments and establish a list of possible suspects before going out to do my own critical listening and evaluations. I find it informative to pay particular attention to the type(s) or genre(s) of music that reviewers use in their evaluations and obviously personally enjoy. This is especially important for reviews of speakers as some perform better with Rock, some better with Classical, some with Jazz, etc. There's nothing wrong with professional reviewers being politic or polite in their assessments, notwithstanding whatever influence(s) advertisers may have. With the best reviewers, you can usually read between the lines. Have you ever been asked how cute a newborn, or somebody's kid was? What are you going to say to the parents? Ugliest kid I've ever seen? In the end, reviews are somebody's opinion. The most important one, is YOURS.

I have subscribed to Stereophile and TAS from the J Gordon Hold and the Harry Pearson days. Once upon a time you could actually read a bad review. When a manufacturer submitted a component for review they held their breath. So what changed? Here are a few things that I have witnessed in my audio journey.

1. The industry matured and every new component from mid price on up sounds good. Unless you are buying something from a crackpot in a garage, the designer has compared his/her new gizmo with state of the art competitors. New gear isn't released until it has been vetted for acceptable sound. A corollary of this is that the sound of all new gear has converged. There is a generally recognized standard for good sound quality and nobody is going to release something that sounds very different.

2. The audiophile publishing business has ballooned into a much bigger industry with slick magazines staffed by well paid writers that include dozens of full page ads from the major companies. Their role has moved from that of an independent critic to a mission of supporting the audiophile hobby and the related industry. Stereophile and TAS are much more like trade magazines now instead of publications that provide critical buying guidance.

3. The magazines have admitted that if they encounter a substandard product they don't review it. They intentionally filter out any products that would receive a bad review. I don't have a problem with this because if a brand or component has been reviewed positively in one of the publications I'm comfortable that it's going to sound good.

4. The publications have declared war on blind testing exactly because most components sound virtually identical. The entire industry is founded on expectation and confirmation bias. IMO this is fine because we are not using our stereo to treat our chronic diseases (hopefully a bad component won't kill us) but I think that a sober recognition of this is important.

5. I believe that the magazines have adopted a role of making us feel good about whatever gear we purchase. If we are drawn to a particular piece of kit, a thorough review can help us justify spending the money (or perhaps raise a red flag). One especially good feature of a speaker review is an analysis of how that speaker will match with an amp (sensitivity, impedance curve). Same thing goes for amps. Even very positive reviews can be informative and therefore provide value to the reader.

Let’s be clear, the effort that goes into a $10K plus component gets much closer to cost no object engineering than a $1K component that has built in compromises that often prevents them from achieving ‘better’ sound. Beyond $10K the hairs being slit become finer and finer to the point that diminishing returns sets in pretty quickly! There can be some ‘designed in’ (filtering) that can change the character of the sound that suits personal taste, but better becomes more difficult to describe and where different is the better descriptor!

I agree with @8th-note - There is so much good gear around today, why would anyone spend months listening to some piece of junk so that they can write a bad review about it? Wouldn’t a reviewer’s time be better spent finding and telling readers about some of the better gear available? I don’t think gear gets reviewed unless someone at the magazine has heard it and recommends it for a review.

The audio magazines are not an evil conspiracy, and we are not their target audience. They are trying to reach people who buy new gear. That means that there will be a dealer and an audition involved. The magazines regularly remind readers not to buy gear without hearing it first, preferably in your own system.

They are not as pure as the driven snow either. They are a commercial enterprise and they do not stay in business if they completely ignore commercial considerations.  People our age should understand that about anyone offering almost free advice.

@mapman 

“”One thing I’ve realized for sure, choosing gear for a beautiful sounding hifi is much like choosing which super model to marry.“”

a great feature of my dogs and stereo equipment, they don’t drive to cheap hotels and jump on a skin sword.