I think we often expect too much from a magazine review. We want the reviewers to tell us what or what not to buy. When this is the case we are asking someone else to make a decision for us and that's not good. The fact, as I see it, is that the equipment that gets reviewed in the high-end mags is good stuff, period. We do not see mass market equipment getting reviewed because it is crap by our standards and expectations. At the same time, we do not expect to see Krell, Audio Research, CJ, Levinson etc, make a piece of equipment that sounds like crap. When I read a review I have come to expect the last statements declare the piece as great, top-notch etc. These statements take on several forms. Some of them state "this is the best $3000 speaker on the market". What about the $2900 or $3100 speakers? Some state "this is the best tube amplifier I have heard to date". What about the solid state amp reviewed last month? I could go on, but I think the idea has been demonstrated. What I expect from a magazine review is a description of the sound. If a loudspeaker has boomy bass, or an amp has a very forward presentation, I want the reviewer to state that. The sonic qualities do not make the equipment bad, but perhaps a mismatch for my existing system, room and liking. I also want to have a basic understanding of what the reviewer likes and dislikes. If "Joe Blow the reviewer" likes a very dry presentation and he comments that a "preamp is somewhat dry" then guess what? That preamp is probably real dry. If I like a warmer, more lush presentation I can immediately cross that preamp off of my list of potential purchases. I may still give it a test listen though, just to find out what it does sound like, as a personal reference and to better understanding of "Joe Blow's review". There are many great sources, and as Albertporter states, this is one of them, so are the high-end mags, but most imporatntly our own ears. Good Luck, Doug