Some famous reviewers have atrocious listening rooms!

I just finished Stereophile’s review of the Klipsch La Scala. Obviously we all know they are super sensitive, super dynamic & can crush just about any other speaker out there in terms of pure undistorted volume with not that many good watts. They only compared it to a 60 year old Altec Valencia! How about compared to speakers of a similar price range in terms of high frequency detail, imaging, low end detail ( did mention it cuts off around 50 hz). 

Funny. My brother just bought a mint pair with upgraded crossovers and powered by a Chinese variant of the LSA amp it just sounded slow, lethargic, and without resolution to me. It is incapable of boogie, of PRAT, of much other than tone. It reminds me of Grandpa's Buick Roadmaster badly in need of new shocks, struts, rubber, and an alignment. It reminds me of Koss 4AA headphones-the real sh*t in the day but that day is long gone. The S'Phile review? I suspect something is badly wrong in Denmark. Fish wrap. 

Noting that the reflective qualities of Michael Fremer's record collection could be responsible for his listening environment, I don't see that a pair of glasses being regarded as a reflective surface only inches from our receptors [ears] wouldn't make a meaningful difference as well.   I wonder if the engineers who designed the famous Neumann KU-100 microphone in the shape of a human head ever considered a special model wearing eyeglasses ?

Try it even if you don't regularly wear eyeglasses and if you don't hear a difference may I suggest a visit to a hearing specialist ?  It definitely makes a difference 

What if you wear John Lennon specs? You are not the first to make this recommendation as Jim Smith makes it in his book but there is no way on Earth a reviewer's perspective is skewed off base due to failing to remove eyeglasses. What's next, mandating a uniform size and shape of ears? Augmenting or reducing the size of the schnoz? What about beards? Yarmulkes and Taqiyah?