Zaike, I meant that what they percieve, and whether they even know that they percieve well enough, becomes less a concern after one learns how to write in that system. Your ability to discern quality becomes much less important than you would assume when you first get there, as a reviewer, because you realize that it is a game that can be learned, and learned to hide that inability.
There are MANY reviewers who I know for a fact that can't hear as good as their reviews would lead you to believe. Like I said, its a game that you become adept at. Since I was there, I can see this much easier - it nearly jumps out when I read a mag - but there are certain patterns to watch for, as SRouse alludes (and he has heard alot of great equipment), although I will refrain comment on the specifics of what he says.
Suffice it to say that many reviewers have lousy ears and realize that they can get by best by: learning the lingo, constructing it with built in deniabilty, canvass the underground to conform observations to potential critics and reduce likelihood of being found out, adopt an aristocratic attitude laced with psuedo-erudite references to feign sophistication and, if a problem arises in any of those regards, do a follow up retracing and/or correcting prior observations. Of course, towing the mag line as far as politics - and it is a fawning cat fight - enables you to be in favor to get your stuff published in order to gain "credibilty" and enact this strategy effectively. There are, actually, too many devices to go into here.
On HP, and the above is not in reference to him in particular - he had decent ears when I knew him, excepting the bias towards bass. We had our run arounds - he was going through a rough time and I had little patience then - but I will say that he was a good Editor on the writing. And, a good writer himself. I have chosen to remember that.
