Does anyone on AG truly care anymore about objectivity & sincerity of Magazine reviews?

@moonwatcher Interesting jump from journalists to scientists. Stopped reading there. By the way, the term "climate change" was coined by George Bush the second.

How 'bout it - you believe in Bush-called "climate change" now? 

YG Acoustics makes great speakers. Just listen to them even if they received a great review. 

It's harder to accept accolades from someone who has chosen not to own a pair, more so when that isn't explained.

As to hearing them, that is difficult when there are relatively few dealers. They do not appear to sell in the quantities of their competitors.  Their chief sales Director for decades, Dick Diamond left for Vivid Audio a couple of years ago, that also has aluminum drivers but a radically better midrange.  What is extraordinary are the videos he does for their main US Distributor, GTT audio (also distributor & retailer of Vivid - you can't make this stuff up) where he says in a video (while standing beside GTT owner Bill Parish) that he has never been so moved & engaged by the music, now that he's joined Vivid. Parish has announced how Vivids are flying out the door but has been silent on YG sales.

I certainly agree they should be compared to other speakers before buying.

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. 

IME with hifi gear now, most if not all of it is competently designed and manufactured, and therefore mostly differences come down to personal tastes and relative synergies that arise to one degree or another while a piece of gear is in a particular reviewer's setup.

Negative reviews are therefore uncommon not just because of bad faith potentially on the part of reviewers, but because truly crappy gear is uncommon now.

BTW there are some YouTube reviewers who combine subjective evaluations with measurements - I personally found these guys to be fairly reliable sources of information to cross reference my own listening impressions with.