"...and I don't take any advertiser money..."

Don't forget that reviewers who post unflattering opinions often end up being harassed and threatened with legal action.

For example, read about the dCS v. Goldensound train wreck.

It's not a "direct" payment, but there's the carrot of "accomodation" pricing, by which well-audienced reviewers have the option to buy the product at a price (sometimes) below used market value. Then they have the additional boon of being able to cap a review like: "I enjoyed the SonicNinja Gaiden Hyper Mk XVII.a SE so much, I purchased the review sample!" 

Even if they DON'T like the component, a well-spun review keeps open the option for future Products review samples which they might actually want. 

You can stick a component in almost any system and hear a dfference - and 99% of the time, that difference can be spun in a "positive" light, with varying degrees effort. And don't forget to tack on the old trope comparsion: "it sounded almost as good as {well known high end component} at 10x the price!". When reviewrs introduce multiple variables at once (multiple review products at the same time) this just adds to the chaos. 

Professional reviews are for entertainment value only - they're not a reasonable guide for building your own system. 

@jl35 yes I do because garmin is a much larger market and they pay for advertising rather than reviews. Reviewers make money by posting their reviews and getting clicks. Totally different business model.

Now I just spent 8 hours shopping for a watch. I read a lot of reviews more for features than opinions. I read a lot of garmin forums and figured out the Fenix 8 amoled that i thought I wanted has a problem with it’s screen in the dark so I switched to the Enduro 3.

Now if someone told me I was wrong and that indeed he does get paid, I wouldn’t be shocked.

I grew up in the UK with the Gramophone magazine. Its primary purpose is reviewing classical music, first on records, then on digital media.  It has been going for over 100 years.

It devoted a couple of pages per issue to reviewing playback equipment.  There was rarely a bad review, but this was dictated by space, not by money.  The audio editors simply did not waste their valuable space on second rate equipment.

Good performances were usually compared with other good performances.  When the same recording kept coming up as a comparison piece, you could expect it to be among the best.  Same with audio.  And when they disclosed what they provided their top reviewers with, in order to judge top recordings, you knew it was good.

This was helped by detailed technical discussion of the reasons why a piece of gear achieved its results.

Of course, the results do not translate well across the North Atlantic, primarily because relative prices are influenced by import duties and tariffs but also because room sizes tend to be very different.

I trust this guys opinion and how he conducts his very thorough reviews. 
http://erinsaudiocorner.com