In response to 'Why not horns?'

The one thing in particular J. Gordon Holt had an ear (/point-of-reference) for and sought to point out, and a distinction that has been sorely missing among most reviewers both past and present, is expressed in the following of his Snell Type A review:

For the audiophile, these are an ideal choice in their price range, as they do everything that he listens for quite a bit better than do many systems costing substantially more.

For the music listener who is intimately familiar with live-music timbres, though, we can recommend the Snells only if mated with another component in the system that will liven up the presence a bit, such as a tubed preamp (for brightness) and a solid-state power amp (for optimum bass performance).

The audiophile, and "the music listener;" one doesn't necessarily exclude the other insofar we're speaking the appreciation of music, but going by its live sonic signature the validation of Mr. Holt's distinction seems appropriate - indeed essential.

In other words and in general: reviewers promote "hifi" (addressed at audiophiles) much more than the sonic recreation of live acoustic music (sought by "the music listener" as per above).
Reviewers promote whatever brings money.
HiFi, music, horns, ribbons, solid states or tubes have nothing to do with that.
When I listen to the Type A, though it lacks dynamics no matter what associated equipment is used, I feel that it is far less "audiophile" than almost all very highly reviewed speakers of today. Less exaggerated, truer timbre, easier on the ears. I'm not a "worshipper", as I do much prefer other speakers I own, but there is more musical truth in them than many contemporary speakers.

Absolutely true that most reviewers promote "hifi", but it's not due to pandering to the reader, it's because the are mostly gear heads, sound nuts, not music nuts.

And, addressing the post above this, yes, that is reality. Money is king, but power drives some more than money. Suffice it to say that both money and power, in differing percentages, drives almost all of them.
We are able to "buy" a great review all we have to do is give a pair of expensive speakers to the reviewer.


These seem like some pretty jaundiced comments- not all reviewers are all about the money. The fact is they don't get paid more for reviewing one product any more than another.

While is is true that one US magazine in particular does seem to have a connection between their editorial stance and advertising (I have this from first-hand experience), most of them don't; IOW they have a good separation between advertising (the money) and reviews.