The Impossible Has Happened

Still, the reviewer is giving this product a glowing review.  I wouldn’t be surprised if later he reviewed the CH Dac and found “details I haven’t heard before “.

I agree with the above poster who said he used reviews to find out what’s out there and their features.  
 

michael

It reminds me of car and driver always doing reviews for cars 99% of the population could never afford to own let alone drive. 

I recall in the 1980s one of these hifi magazines raving about how good a specific model of a Radio Shack portable CD player could sound.  The magazine article claimed it was a real giant killer.  Out of curiosity I walked into my local RS store to check it out.  The salesman had the portable CD player in stock and noted the review in the hifi magazine.  His store price for this precious gem was over 2x retail, as I recall.  

The crazy thing to me was that same magazine had an article arguing the difference of using a drive belt vs. using dental floss made on the the sound of the  Airport One turntable.

A study of contrasts.

Audio electronics have been transparent to the source for several decades - contrary to what the manufacturers want you to believe!

If this is correct, can you explain the tubes/solid state that's been going on for so long? The tube guys assert that most solid state is harsh and bright or lean and dry. The solid state guys say the tube amps are colored due to FR variation and the 2nd harmonic. IME there is truth to both positions. 

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.

IME this statement is problematic. While there is lots of confirmation bias, IMO its false to say the industry is founded on it! And that's because the first statement is false. There are still plenty of differences you can hear between competent equipment and IME you can measure those differences too.

There's an on-going argument decades old between the subjectivist  and objectivist camps. I'm of the opinion that if you can hear a difference, you can measure it too. Both camps hate that (and this has to do with confirmation bias of which both camps are guilty).  If real progress is to be made, that has to stop. Sure, lots of solid state equipment sounds the same- and IMO/IME, most of it also has the same solvable problems (insufficient, poorly applied feedback, insufficient Gain Bandwidth Product..). There are solvable issues on the tube side as well, where you are far more likely to hear bigger differences.  

I can say from direct experience that advertising does not affect the reviews in TAS. I can also say from direct experience that is most definitely does in Stereophile. I can't say at all for any of the other magazines as I have less experience with them, but for the most part my limited experiences suggest they keep a decent firewall between editorial and advertising. I have also seen some pretty underhanded stuff go on- no organization is entirely squeaky clean. 

Reviews have such a low variance in the reviewer’s options of the gear, with almost all being extremely favorable or glowing. Basically, if there’s is any mention of a negative aspect, it pretty much means that the equipment isn’t particularly good. It’s like online ratings of anything, 4/5 stars is terrible and 4.5/5 stars is average. Everything is compressed. I still like reading reviews for entertainment and to learn about potential performance of gear.