Why no reviews of the Magnepan 3.7 in Stereophile

Chadlinz said:

"Reviews are mostly of little value...'

Not to mention the entirely FRAUDULENT REVIEW of the XTEME Loudspeakers by DK, later, the LSA10's, (which was NEVER a speaker, never had drivers in it at all until John Tucker and I completed it) a few years back in POSITIVE FEEDBACK--I wrote to them for weeks to gain some insight as to how it could have happened, NO ANSWER.
Also, Stereomojo...I wrote James Darby, owner/editor/reviewer, asking, (even though it was a good review) "Did you bi-wire my LSA1's when you reviewed them?"
Stating that they were never meant to be single wired, but could be for convenience, but only sound as they can when bi-wired. I wrote at least 4 times, NO ANSWER.

Reviewers can be really, really dumb, and all they have to do is hide behind their monitors when called out.

I miss the day when Absolute Sound only had ads in the rear of the magazine...separate from reviews.

Good listening,

Larry

Lrsky , Thank you for your enlightening post.I fully agree with Chadlinz that reviews are of little value yet so many members quote chapter and verse from a review they read.
I wonder,do they really hear what the reviewer states being the room and 99% of the associated components used differ from the reviewer's.
I guess its just the POWER OF SUGGESTION.

Pubum57, you wrote you found reviewers "generally do a good job describing the basic attributes of a given product" (paraphrased).
Dont you see how odd that statement is? If it is "basic" then who needs it? Cant anyone with half a brain do "basic" descriptions?
Sure we all cant demo gear near us but by most everything you said reviewers often do little more than most, save for the huge gifts and discounts they do get for "basic" info.

I am confused by your confusion, they, the reviewers, are in a position to listen
to equipment I cannot, and generally have a much larger range of equipment
that they have also listened to by way of comparison. I do not need them to
assess equipment I do listen, but for equipment that I do not have a chance to
listen to. So the "basic attributes" means clear description of what a piece
sounds like, not basic as simple, but a basic characterization that is accurate
though it will vary in its implementation based on associated equipment.

I don't think reviewers hear any better than anyone else, but for the most part
they do have the opportunity to hear equipment and the time and inclination to
write about their experience. Now if I just thought they were whoring
mercenaries paid to write copy for the manufacturer I would probably indeed
discard their views for the garbage they are, but I don't think most reviewers are
that incompetent or intentionally lying and trying to mislead - those that are
can be smelled from a mile away and they don't last too long. For example, I
find when Art Dudley listens to equipment and describes it, it is pretty darn
similar to my experience when I hear that piece of equipment, and we both
seem to like similar sound.

So is cynicism merited due to the conflict of
interests and financial ties to advertisers? Maybe. My view is not so jaundiced as
to discredit their ability to describe the sound of what they hear, and that is at
least useful for be given a sense of equipment to consider. Or I could listen to
folks on Audiogon that own a piece of equipment they are looking to sell in a
few months (or those that have a financial interest in said product, often not
disclosing that fact) and believe their praise for that piece of equipment. I take
both sources of information with a grain of salt, but in both cases it brings
products to my attention that I might want to listen to, then do kitten to, and
then decide for myself if I like it or not, no matter what Fremer said.

Good Post Pubul57.