If you ever want to link a review as an example of one you like, or admire, or appreciate, then I would like to read it for positive context.
@tvad Here’s a review of the same speaker that is much more rigorous and contains all the elements I mentioned before (review system, comparison, limitations) that the TAS review completely lacks As a result I find this review much more informative and provides much needed context to get a better idea of the speaker’s overall sound and character not only on an absolute but also on a relative basis. Not only do I come away with a better idea of the speaker’s sound, I have a much better idea if this is a product I’d be interested in pursuing further that I could not as clearly discern from the other review, and isn’t that really the point of reading a review? All that said, it should be apparent how much more time and effort it takes to produce a review of this caliber as opposed to just spewing superlatives in a bubble with absolutely no context whatsoever. Like I said earlier, the TAS review is much easier/faster to produce but is much less useful or effective IMO. Hope this comes through for you too and that this clarifies things a bit.
https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/equipment-reviews/1859-goldenear-t66-loudspeaker