Fremer lays an Ostrich egg...

I've been reading hi-fi and record reviews for... a long time. When M. Fremer popped into the thread and claimed that his writing is intended as 'entertainment' (albeit of the 'informed' variety), my first reaction was to say "Hey, wait a minute. You've got a journalistic responsibility to get it right. People hang onto your words, a bad review can kill a product, or make one... how can you take your task so lightly?"
But, after thinking about it for a while.... I think he's right. Here's why:
1. I'm more interested in learning what I can when I read these magazines- a glowing review, using all the magic audiophile words, doesn't really give me much information. I'm more interested in the process by which the reviewer tries to get at what the component does and does not do well than any ultimate and all encompassing conclusion about whether it is an A+ or C- in that reviewer's estimation.
2. All of the subjective evaluations are system dependent to a greater or lesser degree. Yes, you can suss out particular characteristics of a given component by listening to it in a variety of set-ups, but unless that review covers your precise system, in a room of pretty much the exact acoustic character of yours, it's all extrapolation- hints, insights, maybe some questions, but no firm conclusions. I doubt any of us would buy an expensive piece of gear based solely on a professional reviewer's opinion, regardless of how good that review or reviewer is. And of course, that doesn't take into account program material, let alone each listener's own biases (including but not limited to the reviewer himself).
3. Reviews can be voyeuristic to a degree- let's see what he/she (there aren't many 'shes' in this business) says about a component I own. And if you don't own it, it can be fun to read, just for the pleasure of learning a little about the component and one person's experience with it- somebody that knows their way around equipment and knows how to write clearly enough to make it worthwhile to read.
4. There are some bad writers out there, and some shallow reviewers- I don't consider M. Fremer to be one of them. I think he struggles with the process, and I like the fact that he focuses on analog equipment.
Fremer did not pay me to say this. I don't even know the man.

FF: I would assume that disclaimer - to go do an audition for yourself- is implicit in every review.
Kzhtoo: I think relying too heavily on anyone else's opinion, no matter how experienced, in deciding to buy something expensive is probably a mistake, if only for the reason that results are system dependent and depend on your ears.
The difficulty, obviously, is being able to get a home audition. Not easy if you are buying used from Audiogon or in some cases where the manufacturer sells direct. This is obviously where the premium paid to a dealer has value.
I guess I'm not as cynical as some of you. I know that reviewers get accommodations and are often reluctant to give any product an outright 'pan,' but as Syntax in his own, inimitable way put it, you can often read between the lines of any review. My suspicion is there are far more products that get 'good' reviews that eventually don't prove worthy in the long run than products that get unfairly trounced by a professional reviewer.
We often trade advice and tips here too. And much of it can be valuable, not so much on 'what should I buy' or 'is X better than Y' but on user experiences, 'synergies,' troubleshooting and practical set up advice.

Kzhtoo- I'm completely sympathetic to the concerns you are raising, not because I have succeeded in overcoming them for myself, but because I still struggle with the same issues you do, and have been fooling around with this stuff for more than 40 years. Dealers are in business to make money and none carry all possible brands you'd like to demo, even assuming you are in a locale where most of the equipment is accessible. Some products are virtually impossible to get for home demo, unless you know another enthusiast who already owns it, and is willing to let you try it for a period of time in your system. (A fast afternoon or evening is not really enough).
Then there is the alchemy of system and component matching- sure, there are some tried and true combinations, but unless you are prepared to buy new speakers and amps to replicate a proven combination, you are entering into voodoo land. I wish it were not so. I wish it was easy enough to get the gist of a given component from the published specs, or a review, and have confidence that you will know what you are getting and how well it will work.
Some pretty experienced hi-fi enthusiasts get that experience by trying, buying and discarding an endless array of equipment in their pursuit. It's not just 'flavor of the month,' but a quest to achieve some elusive quality that they can hear in their mind's eye (how's that for a mixed metaphor). Even if they achieve nirvana, it's a pretty costly process.
Reviews are not a very good substitute for many of these reasons. I'm not an apologist for reviewers in general or M. Fremer in particular- I assume most do it because they actually enjoy some part of the reviewing process and like music and gear, but, when you think about what it is they have to do to write a review, it can be a pretty thankless task. Setting the stuff up, getting it burned in, making sure they understand its quirks, its operating features and getting it zoned in for best performance, taking other system variables into account (and sometimes having to make substantial changes to other parts of the system to get there). Do that once a month and its probably 1/2 fun and 1/2 a pain in the ass. Do it as a regular job- has to be a real grind. So, what's the upside? Learning, access to good, musical gear, an inside track to an interesting industry that is still made up of quite a few colorful characters, writing, getting published and doing a lot of legwork. Part journalist, part tech, part music fan, and bringing to bear whatever innate talents they have where the technology, the music and the writing converge, to make it worthwhile. The reader? I don't think too many professional writers disdain their readers- but, it's kind of like asking somebody in any field "why did you say X 4 years ago about such and such a topic?" It may have been their best effort at the time; they know more now, or listen differently. I also suspect that somebody who listens to equipment constantly, on an ongoing basis, as part of their profession has a different view on the whole thing than you do, when you earmark funds for a substantial purchase and want to be 'right' in what you are buying. Sure, they get a price break if they decide to buy the stuff for themselves, but they certainly aren't making much money writing audio reviews. They just have greater access, and perhaps a willingness to roll with various review equipment, making changes to their personal systems only when something really 'pops.' Otherwise, they could maintain a decent reference and 'feed the equipment habit' largely by relying on a continued influx of new gear for review. There are guys I know in the car business, high end cars to be sure, who have little need to personally invest tons of money in their own rides- what they may collect for themselves is oddball, quirky stuff, since they are driving the latest and greatest anyway as part of their jobs.
Sorry for the overlong post. I don't think your problem is unique at all- it is in some ways the very root of uncertainty and the constant striving to improve our systems. Unfortunately, it's not a 'buy the best' and live happily ever after story, even if you have unlimited funds, because there is no 'best' once you get to a certain level of gear and so much depends on basic set-up, component synergies, room and your particular taste. In some ways, it is what makes this an interesting hobby.