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

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.

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.

@terry9 this isn't the forum for it, but there is a huge difference between "climate change" and making the assertion that it is caused by mankind contributing a very small change in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The United States could disappear from the face of the Earth and the temperature of the Earth wouldn't change by any scientifically significant amount. 

A smart man a long time ago said if you want to know the truth about a situation for the most part, always, always, follow the money. 

All the planets of the solar system warmed in the last 50 years. There are no SUVs on Mars or Pluto. 

Scientific study is one thing, but using some poorly considered "conclusions" from that in order to funnel our tax money to the U.N. or make energy more expensive and to lower our standard of living is a pretty huge leap. 

I've followed this issue closely since the 1970s and have found enough scientific rebuttal against it to at least think it is a scam at best and perhaps mass hysteria at worse.