When a Reviewer "likes" something


... what does that mean in your opinion. I read in one of the last Stereophile mags a comment from Mr. Atkinson where he wrote about the differences in "opinions" in forums or in printed mags. After all he ended with the argument, a component is good when a reviewer likes it.
Isn't is more helpful, when a reviewer knows something about a real tone reproduction? Or is it ok, when he used every month another CD or LP he got for free, a kind of music nearly no one wants to listen to?
Harry Pearson used in the 90's always the same records for his reviews but that was an exception I think.
What is it worth for you when - for example - Mr. Dudley/Fremer/Valin/HP .... "likes" something? Do you have the same "taste" they have?
I know it is possible to like a Turntable even when that unit can't hold the proper speed, or is extremely sensitive to any influences, there are endless recommendations written about such units...what is it worth for you?
Atkinson for example measures units, some have top datas but they can sound very boring, far away from the real thing, some have no top datas, some "tests" are shortened because a unit can reach a area which can be pretty dangerous (see one of the latest Agostino units, just as an example) but they are rated Class A in recommendations anyway....
When someone "knows" what is right or not, then his "liking" is only a personal opinion which is more or less uninteresting or?
Most customers (not all of course) would prefer to know what a unit is really able to do sonically, or not? Would knowledge destroy the joy of Hardware rolling? Or is there a reason why reviewers use low efficiency speakers when they have a tube amp for review (for example Lamm ML2.1/ML2.2 with Magico Speakers)? Is the matching "expensive + expensive" the proper way to show competence?
128x128syntax
Audiophile discovers sound effected by impedance matching! Did it take a lot of research to reach that conclusion? Don't mean to be really rude, but that's basic, basic info.
Bifwynne, Your summation of Ralph's paper is pretty much synonymous with what I last posted. In general (a very important qualifier), don't try to drive a 4-ohm speaker with a tube amplifier, unless it is one humongous beast. Especially don't mate an OTL with a nominal 4-ohm speaker. The reason many/most of us (well, not me) are using multi-driver 4-ohm speakers is because they were made possible by the advent of high power SS amplifiers that use gobs of negative feedback to achieve a very low output impedance, necessary to drive a low impedance speaker, and great looking distortion measurements under laboratory conditions. The 70s phenomenon of the hi-power SS amplifier, abetted by the audio magazine industry, started this ball rolling. (Are any of you old enough to remember HP drooling over the Phase Linear 700 amplifier? 700W per channel, THD in the millionths of a percent, blew up on the odd occasion, sound like shit.) You may notice that more sensible speakers are making a small comeback in the market place, e.g., those made by Coincident, Devore, Spendor, and several others, possibly because there are guys with 10W 300B amps that want to listen to them. But the other point of my post is that Raul made an argument pro SS almost entirely on this issue of impedance matching, and it IS an issue with modern speakers but not the only issue to consider when selecting an amp to drive your beloved speakers. In other areas, SS amplifiers have faults not shared by tube amplifiers, e.g., sensitivity to a reactive load. Many SS designs cannot drive complex loads without becoming unstable, and many are generating much more distortion than a comparable tube amp under such conditions, when you're sitting there trying to listen to music. THD measurements are made driving a power resistor, hardly a surrogate for a modern loudspeaker with several capacitors in the crossover and inductive and capacitative drivers to boot. Also, don't be fooled by enormous "Damping Factor" numbers, another myth made live by the reviewers. Damping factor is the ratio between the input Z of the speaker and the output Z of the amplifier. Typically, the speaker value is assigned to be 8 ohms. All you need is a ratio of around 10. Much above that, excessive DF can have a negative sonic effect on bass reproduction. Yet, very high damping factor quotes, sometimes in the 1000s, are a bragging point for SS amplifiers, again parroted by reviewers.

Having said all that, I would be the first to admit that modern SS amplifiers are probably not so guilty of these sins, and the gap between tube and SS has narrowed. I am very interested in the First Watt amplifiers made by Nelson Pass and in the more expensive Pass Labs amps, though I have yet to get an audition of any. Look for SS amps that use no or very little NFB. Look for amps that have lowest distortion measurements at lowest power output, such that distortion increases linearly with power from less than one Watt upwards. The first Watt is the most important Watt. Look for Class A SS amps. Those will be the best sounding, I think.

I think Raul is very sincere. But I, like some others here, go for "I like it". I like it, because I just came back from listening to live music and what I want to hear in my home is something that sounds like what I just heard from a live musician, with the same dynamic range and clarity. For me this hobby should be mostly a pleasure. I happen to think that when I get a glimpse of Nirvana, the system is doing most things correctly. The better it gets, the more of my LPs sound great. Every time I make a change in my electronics designed to reduce distortion, the system sounds a little better. Isn't that a sign that Raul and I are after the same thing but by different methods? Maybe.
Lewm, I think Raul seems to want his system to reproduce what is on the recording with as little distortion as possible. You seem to want your system to sound like a live music. Those seem to be different goals.
I suspect that one might even be disappointed by a live music performance versus an engineered sound studio recording. But that is a discussion for another day.
Bifwynne- Interesting that you say that, because I am actually the opposite. I find that (assuming that they are reasonably well done) I prefer "live" recordings. Don't know why but I can speculate that the audience interaction inspires the artist and the lack of overprocessing/overdubbing/over-manipulating allows the "truth" to come through more clearly. Of course, I can't carry a tune in the proverbial bushel basket so if the instrument or voice is a LITTLE off-key/out-of-tune, I'd never know it.
"Atkinson wrote in that Issue, that in most forums is mainly nonsense written, from time wasters who have absolutely no idea from anything and a professional reviewer who writes in a magazine, is a much more serious source..."

What else would a representative of an archaic species at the border of extinction write?

Being rather a young generation listener, reviewer words mean nothing to me and actually I do not waste my time neither reading any "professional" reviews nor even thinking of how corrupt, non-sense etc they are. I think I live in a parallel universe. Gear problems I try to resolve in various internet communities, with a very strong BS filter applied.