i stopped reading stereophile because i got tired of the lack of detail in their speaker [listener] reviews. oh sure there is a detailed tech section, but i wanted the reviewer to tell me some basic user info, such as if the speaker is on the mellow or harsh side of neutral, how well the bass section reproduces organ pedal notes, the quality of stereophonic imaging esp. off to the side, the clarity of specific frequency ranges, dynamic limitations, et al. what i got instead was descriptions of how a given system played obscure records in their collection that are not likely to be easily found, this didn't tell me how the speaker would likely sound with more general kinds of music in my listening room.
What should be mandatory in every professional published review-
When testing a company's newest amp, preamp, etc, and it is a refinement of a prior product that was on the market, ie, a Mark II, an SE version, a .2 etc, it should be mandatory that the review includes a direct comparison with the immediate predecessor. IMHO, it's not enough to know ion the product is good; it's also important to know if there is a meaningful difference with the immediate predecessor.
I'm fan of Pass Labs, and I just looked at a review of an XP22 preamp. I find it very disturbing that there was no direct comparison between the XP22 and the XP20. And this lack of direct comparison is ubiquitous in hi-end published reviews, across all brands of gear tested. I don't blame the gear manufacturers, but rather the publications as I view this as an abdication of journalistic integrity.
Opinions welcome-