Sterophile's not so nice review of Bryston

The problem with reviews is that they are just not very accurate in that they paint a product with a very small brush, their room, a few amps or preamps... rarely do they use a preamp from the same mauufacturer, their favorite cables may not work with everything, even if you need a wall street bonus to pay for them. Thus, the MF review of Bryston did not impress me in a negative way. I just think MF failed to examine the amp more thoroughly and give the readership a more complete review. Before a negative review occurs, the magazine needs to realize the consequences of the review, and try to find other speakers, preamps, cables, etc. to optimize the product. The manufacturer should give a list of speakers which will or known to work well, and provide a preamp with the amp. This is just good service to the readers. I think they (reviewers)just get lazy, and use what is on hand,whether it be good or bad in synergy. As far as Bryston is concerned, I like their sound. I have had the 4BSST, have listened to the 14BSST, which did get a good review in stereophile, as did the CD player and DAC, and their warranty is first rate. I bought them because they were very musical. Try the 4BSST with the Aerial 10T, a quicksilver preamp or Bryston preamp, and the 7BST is also good with this speaker and there is magic. I also have used the 4BSST on top and 14BSST or 7BST on bottom with the MAggie 3.6, and this was also sheer magic with dynamics to spare. The bottom line, Bryston may not work with all other speakers, preamps, etc., like everyting else. Matching is what keeps us searching...One bad review, I don't think Bryston will slow down. I tend to find reviews like one brief snapshot, nothing more, nothing less. Always trust your ears. I think MF would agree. He heard what he heard. If I get 7BSST2 monos, I won't be getting his speakers.....

Do you actually believe reviewers buy equipment? Their equipment is either on long term or permanent loan. When a reviewer says he likes it so much he is going to buy it, you can bet it was a gift.

In the late '90s a well known and trusted reviewer started his own magazine. In his review of a speaker he said he was buying the review sample because he liked them so much. The speakers immediately showed up in a classified ad for 50% of retail. I recognized his phone number because I sent him interconnects which were never returned.

It is unfortunate when a product receives a bad review. It is unfortunate for the manufacturer and for anyone that owns that product because it would make it impossible to sell. Maybe the manufacturers should be more careful about what reviewer they send their products to. If you have a product like Bryston don't send it to a reviewer that only reviews the most expensive equipment because that is what he will compare your product to and if he mainly listens to tubes, forget it. It's all relative.

So, who is at fault in the case of the Bryston amp? Bryston didn't like the review, so they cancelled their ads or Bryston stopped advertising and got a bad review? Which came first?

Agree with those members who believe that audiophile mag component reviews are for mere entertainment & glossy pix. Nothing more! Read them with this in mind.
I know a reviewer who works for a audio e-magazine & he told me that the editor of that e-magazine denied him any further opportunity to write component reviews after that editor read some of my friend's reviews-to-be-published & saw just how candid my friend was re. the audio components. My friend wrote it like it was calling good, good & bad, bad. That just did not fly at this e-magazine!
So, you can imagine how it is at S'phile, TAS & other glossy rags......

As another member wrote, learn to read between the lines - that's key! You can tell if the component is good, bad or ugly in its sonics.
FWIW. YMMV.

By far all of the above is far more entertaining than any of the audio mags could ever hope to be.

Thanks!

OK, so perhaps reviewers don't exactly "buy" the gear they keep around for reference. But they do keep certain pieces around to compare with review equipment, and it appears to me that they try to keep gear that is particualrly good at one or two things, and/or better than average overall for a particular retail price point, even if this "choice" is colored by manufacturer "discounts".

That said, I don't always agree with reviewer's "choices" based on my (very) limited experience. But it is a "choice" on their part nevertheless. I guess I doubt very much that reviewers universally accept, keep and tout crap gear just because it is free, or worse, incentivised.