I have been in this hobby since the late ‘70s to see the transition from the school of thought that anything that measures well has excellent SQ, and anything that measures the same sounds the same, to publications that developed new lexicons to articulate differences in SQ between equipment. It was an exciting time where these pioneers did not make money on advertising, but only on subscriptions, giving some level of comfort that the review was an honest opinion of the reviews impressions. Some reviews in the early days were devastating in highlighting poor SQ. Some of those periodicals are gone and the ones that remain fight for advertising revenue. Also, in our litigious society, some companies are suing reviewers when reviews not to their liking. So I agree that most reviews are tame compared to the past and one could question if loss of advertising revenue enters into the equation. However, reviews are part of the critical research process of finding equipment that matches your sound preferences. First define the SQ you prefer or the improvements you wish to realize. Second read reviews and determine if the reviews are consistent with your preferences. Third, compare differences in the explanation of the SQ between reviews. Fourth, audition noting differences in your perception vs the reviewers. Audition is a must at a reputable dealer that will assist in determining system compatibility and setup. I personally do not focus on design pre se. I have found many executions of the same technology I love on one product but dislike in another. If is not the technology but the design engineer’s use of that technology to reach their design intent. Some are more successful than others.
Does anyone on AG truly care anymore about objectivity & sincerity of Magazine reviews?
The latest cover story In the Absolute Sound triumphs the latest 3rd generation YG loudspeakers & their very best, latest technology. While the accolades commence (& do they ever), they only say, "the aluminum- coned midrange driver are carried over from the series 2" conspicuously omitting to mention nothing whatsoever has been done to it - ever (unlike virtually all their competitors who've had numerous major improvements to their MRs). It’s exactly the same driver that came with the speaker when it was first introduced decades plus ago. Their claims for it have not been verified by any 3rd party ever & no audio company has tried to copy their aluminum drivers ever, either. Entry level Paradigms perhaps, but they have the wisdom to understand aluminum cannot be made to compete with the beryllium they use on their upper end product.
Regarding the revised silk dome tweeter, "you may think your speakers excel in this area but until you’ve heard something like the 3s...you may have never heard true high frequency refinement". So a complete dismissal (with no comparisons of any kind of course) of all Diamond, Beryllium, ribbon, electrostatic etc. tweeters, just like that.
Is it just me or is there (from the Wizard of Oz) a clearly implied, "Ignore that man behind the curtain! !" message, as YG simultaneously has a full page, 4 color ad in the same issue & has been an extremely heavy advertiser for years in the magazine?
I’m reminded of the con man’s credo - You can fool some of the people all the time & all the people some of the time - & that’s enough. I had thought that’s not an especially good, long term business model. Maybe I’m wrong on this last, here.