What do you expect a reviewers system to be

In the old days, the reviewers at ABS and Stereophile used to list the records and equipment used to evaluate the equipment, and point out specific areas of the music where the equipment acted in a certain manner different from their reference. that way, you could play the same album and see if you heard the same thing. I thought that was a good way of transfering the reviewers experience to something I could recreate in my home. they seem to have gotten away from that.
ABS especially would have a number of reviewers review the same piece of equipment and have their counterpoint to the main reviewer. I found that to be useful also.
I suppose these days of instant gratification require a quick turnover of equipment to ensure that the latest and greatest gets reviewed and printed ASAP. Perhaps quantity over quality. When ABS and Stereophile were underground mags with fluctuating publishing schedules, they could take their time until they had enough to fill a magazine. Now, with monthly schedules they print what they have to fill the space, and not a lot of followup. But, it must be a more successful business model as the old journal style almost went under. I preferred that old, small book style. Seemed a little more important than the magazine format.
I dont have a problem with the reviewer publishing what the manufacturer states is their theory for the product, so long as we know thats what it is, manufacturer explanation. We can take it or leave it. I dont like when a reviewer just copies the manufacturers brochure to pass off as his own explanation of the science involved. Just tell me what it sounds like, and if it works properly with no quirks. If it takes a month to warm up before it sounds good, say so, and I will pass. If it only works with certain cables, to me, it is a flawed product and I will pass. If it blows up, send it back and move on.

We can't really know what a reviewer's system sounds like or what their personal tastes are. Given that, I think one of the most valuable parts of a review is when a piece of equipment under review is compared to something else. People in general (including reviewers) are bad judgers of absolutes and much better at making relative comparisons, so when reviewers fail to make comparisons to other equipment I find the review to be of little value no matter what's in their system. And when they further fail to list the equipment in their system it makes it even more useless and frustrating. This happens a lot in TAS and drives me up the wall because they review lots of good stuff. Frequently they list their reference system excluding only the corresponding piece of equipment to what they're reviewing. That strikes me as pure cowardice. Anyway...

The one oddest thing is when reviewing an item: the first one broke, the second one broke.. but it is a great piece of equipment...
At least they tell us the stuff is junk right up. Before they gush over it.

"The one oddest thing is when reviewing an item: the first one broke, the second one broke"

That item is now history. Would you buy it knowing that companies QC does not exist? This tells me that manufacturer is not one of the magazines favorite advertisers. If it was a favorite advertiser you would never hear about the defective units. It's kind of like paying for protection. Get it?

As mentioned, having two systems, in different rooms. One would be a reference system that resulted from many years of listening. The other would be a continual work in progress with testing new components to be compare only against the reference system components sound, not the components themselves.