Honesty of the Reviewers

If you see an Audio Magazine where the ratio of ads to reviews is 10(ads) to 1(reviews) you have to wonder. What Hi-Fi comes to mind. They are a budget audiophile to mid-fi magazine. Whenever I look at a copy I am always amazed at how they tend to favor the budget gear over the better gear.
If memory serves they gave the Rotel RCD951 CD Player 5 "gold" stars and the RCD971 something like 3 stars. It also seems that almost no gear gets a rating less than 3 stars. They don't want to piss-off any potential advertisers. They also seem to have never reviewed an NAD or Marantz product they disliked.

There are some other threads on the subject of Reviews. I remember Stereophile came in for some bashing for "selling out" to the Ad dollar.

Plato, I find this an excellent and well considered post and have voted accordingly. I've followed the "history of reviewing in the then underground mags" practically from its beginning and hence know, how raving mad manufacturers can get, even with a midly critical review. William Zane Johnson of Audio Research for example, would not talk to HP for months on end... and that was after all those rave rewiews about Sp6 and the 110 tube amp for example. On the other hand, I also remember Michael Fremer raving about the (in)famous Tice clock, which, after getting one for myself out of sheer curiosity, proved to me, that reviewers are humans too, not neccesarily dishonest, in this case especially not, but sometimes prone to attacks of gullibility, which none of us can be sure to always be completely devoid of. That's also, why I like mags, where more than one reviewer writes about the same product.

Detlof, you raise some good points and I appreciate your response. As you noted, even the best and most respected reviewers are not immune to psychological hype and can occasionally make errors in their assessments. We are above all, human, and readers need to be aware of that aspect -- especially condidering how subjective most reviews are. Indeed, at times it's more akin to judging a poetry contest than related to science. That said, I've read many reviews that in my view accurately captured the review item's intrinsic character. :)

You see, my typo above, "condidering" -- just serves to illustrate that we reviewers are human. I wish Audiogon allowed one to edit his comments after posting! :)

You just need to appreciate that reviewers have two main incentives. First, they must have some credibility. Arguably, only enough for their target audience, but if they are ambitious they may wish their name (as opposed to the mag they work for) to stand for something. Second, they have to pay the mortgage like anybody else - ask yourself what conditions you have to place on your own integrity at your place of work. Just appreciate that they are neither altruists or public servants.