The "how many reviews it got" rule

I don’t think any of our current mags come close to the standard he attained

I don't think it's a fair criticism.  If it were that, then we wouldn't have Ferrari or Lamborghini. 

I would read any audiophile review with a pinch of salt. I would look at measurements and look for forums about complaints of build or support issue. Then look at components used, design etc and of-course price.

I am in the camp that thinks good amps should all sound same at normal levels as long they can drive the speakers without breaking a sweat. 

@geek101  +1

Here is the thing, you give an item a bad review, and you implicitly insult people who went out and bought one. They get upset, regardless how spot on, or perhaps even generous the review, and they will not renew their subscription. Subscriptions plummet with every negative review, which also lowers advertising revenue because the advertisers want a large audience, and pay based upon magazine sales figures. 

When TAS and Stereophile were add free, they had more flexibility but still, their income stream was based upon magazine sales, but in their case, magazine sales only. So even then there was an automatic disincentive to degrade bad gear. 

I have owned and heard many of their top tier gear, and have found that much of it sucks. While I rarely ever buy based upon the clown posse's reviews, I thankfully did allow them to talk me into buying a Schiit Audio Yggdrasil, and that was a game changer, but it was also, I believe, an exception.

It was such a drastic improvement that I have since completely revamped my stereo. I went with a Schiit Freya for a time, but reluctantly followed the advice of a former Freya owner and bought a Don Sachs DS2 preamp. I honestly expected it to be at best a nominal improvement, but it wasn't. Mind you, synergy does come into play here, had I had say Vandersteen speakers, I may very well have been unable to distinguish many of the differences which I heard. 

So too with individual reviews on line. Ignorance is a part of the human condition, if not we wouldn't bother with reviews in the first place. The gear that I own is the most neutral I can find at a price that I believe that I can afford. Others would call neutral gear bright, and I suppose bright gear, very bright. So ferreting through reviews of any type is fraught with problems. It's a shame that we don't have audio studios strategically located throught the nation with large assortments of gear that we could listen to in a variety of acoustically different rooms.

Art Dudley used to extol the virtues of EAR gear. Then he reviews their latest Classic CD player and said it sounds terrible (for the price) distorted while Atkinson supports that view with measurements. Sure, it was defective, putting out 6 volts instead of 2 volts. He sends it back and issues an update that it is good and should be in the company of similar priced single boxed players. No kidding. I own the EAR Acute and heard a stock Classic. It’s a great player with the stock tubes even (mine had to have NOS Amperex). The forum trolls were merciless saying how junky EAR equipment is and how they should know better than making defective equipment because of the review.

Yes Inna, it does seem like a lot of cash for a similar sound but one can purchase a used EAR Acute (strictly for CD playback) for $2K.

Sometimes the magazines go crazy for new technologies but downplay the negatives. High Fidelity cables have never sounded good in over a dozen very different systems I’ve heard them in. Yes, they have patented the heavy magnetic cable implementation, the bigger magnets, the more expensive (and the worst sounding).

Sometimes they leave out the required synergies necessary to make something sound great. B&W speakers (as well as Wilson and Magicos) need a TON of power to sound as good as the reveiewers say. No SETs or typical amps without great current reserves for them.

Also, back in the 90s, a Counterpoint Amp was deemed mediocre by RH and returned to the manufacturer. They said they changed it. He then gave it a big thumbs up stating how good it is. Turns out, Counterpoint didn’t change anything and resent it to him. You can’t trust most magazine reviewers.