I’ve never encountered a negative review in a magazine (I subscribe to Stereophile), but I have encountered them on YouTube, and they really get my attention when I do. Negative reviews are risky for the reviewer, not just getting sued from the manufacturer or losing out on the chance to review gear from other manufacturers; but also from the viewership side, I don’t think negative reviews are popular anyway. Negative reviews often tell more about the reviewer than the product. Some reviewers refuse, or choose, not to offer negative reviews, period.
Stepping back a bit, I consider the inclusion of comparison to similar products in a review as an effort to contribute some ‘objectivity’ to the review; I also look for key words like, ‘I liked thus and so’, or, ‘in my system xxx worked better’, etc., or even, ‘I heard thus and so’ as phrases tipping me off that what follows is a subjective ‘take’ on the product or its performance. I like to hear components revealed and discussed as another objective component of a review, as in what kind of transformer is used, how big, how many, etc, overall system design (delta sigma or resistor ladder), or particular design elements, like the use of capacitors in the signal path (or their removal), how one designer, or one manufacturer, employs a particular design element.
Basically, I evaluate a review, or reviewer, by how much, or how little, he or she answers the questions I have about the product under review. Some hit the mark pretty well, others miss it entirely. Test measurements are supposed to be objective data. But I think, on average, most reviewers, and most publications, understand their task to be reporting both objective facts and subjective opinions on what it is like to own and use a product. If they don’t at least try to do so, they don’t deserve my subscription.
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.