When a Reviewer "likes" something

Syntax asks some good questions. The way I see it, Gordon Holt and later Harry Pearson were both very sincere observers of what Harry first called "the high end". I don't believe either of them had a commercial bias, and Gordon Holt got in trouble with a few manufacturers along the way for his outspoken reviews. With HP, one soon learned that he had real biases, but I never thought it had much to do with dollars, more to do with which guys in the industry he liked and with which bits of gear when cobbled together would give him the particular colorations he seemed to be fond of. (Jadis? Get real.) But his contribution was to construct a language that could be used (by him and only a few others since, unfortunately) to convey a sense of how something sounded. Having said that, I must also say that any time in my audio life that I heard something he liked, I found it to be very disappointing. In any case, the modern versions of audio magazines Stereophile and TAS have gone astray from the real intent of their respective founders. The concept of a common language at TAS has been totally lost, for example. I wouldn't argue with any of the critical comments made here by others. I never did make a purchasing decision (consciously) based on the content of a review, and I certainly would not do so now. I find that TAS and S'phile are very handy for reading in the bathroom. Let's also remember that the Brit magazines, fondly referred to above, or some of their more well known reviewers, were caught soliciting pay for praise, more than once.

Yet, I want them all to survive, because I favor print over internet. Internet reviews are far less reliable, far more ridiculous, IMO. Anyone can publish anything on the internet. I see truly idiotic misconceptions promulgated electronically much more often than in print.

Usually that means it was given to them free, or at a big discount.

so it surprises you that 99% of what they review is exceptional in some way? and the other 1% would have been a game changer if for 1 minor deficiency? A reviewers business model is to maximize profits through some combination of advertising and subscription algorithm. Reviews are content much like Jersey Shore is to MTV. The more contriversial the more value. Always subjective, a review can never be refuted because it doesn't rely on facts, just someones opinion.
In the spirit of spring, it's like going to www.yankees.com and reading how great things are going to be this year so come on out and buy tickets to "our game".
After reading this you are no closer to the truth of how the Yankees are going to perform. They will still tell you the Yankees are great this year, but no facts support these claims.

What a reviewer likes means nothing unless, over the years, you find that you have the same tastes as they do. For me the only reviews that are helpfull, (when refering to sound quality), have references to other equipment that I myself am familiar with. Even then they are only somewhat helpfull as I have noticed in the decades of reading reviews that reviewers, just like ourselves, have some areas of the music reproduction that are critcally important while other areas not so much. A good example for me is tube electronics. I will be the first to admit that they have many shortcomings but what they do exceptional well is more important to me than what they don't. There are others who say the same for solid state.

03-27-13: Lewm
Yet, I want them all to survive, because I favor print over internet. Internet reviews are far less reliable, far more ridiculous, IMO. Anyone can publish anything on the internet. I see truly idiotic misconceptions promulgated electronically much more often than in print.

I couldn't disagree with you more. I don't find internet reviews any less reliable than print reviews, and the internet presents fourms such as this. Personally, I have found much more help in forums such as these than any review written in print. Most here are just hobbyists, with no agenda, no profit margin to attain. The reviews in glossy rags are almost comical, the way they wax poetically over gear that I've heard sound like garbage. They are simply advertisements, nothing more. JA has zero credibility in my eyes, after listening to some of the brands he's been shilling over the years. Yech.