Cynics will point their fingers at magazines but come on, does anyone really think they care so little about their own livelihood and credibility that they will write reviews to sell ad space. If a magazine reviews a piece that is not what it is claimed to be the consumer will hear it when they go to the store to buy it. Who cares what magazine got a big ad budget after, or before a review. That is completely off of the point. Magazines will go out of business if they adopt a policy like the ones suggested in earlier comments. Pure selfishness would prevent it. Magazine writers like to eat too. I don't read many of the HiFi mags anymore and when my last subscription to Stereophile expires I will not renew it. I can learn about as much from some of the knowledgeable people on AudiogoN as I can from the rags. The problem is knowing which people to ignore but I'm learning that too.
Another reason for the positive reviews in the mags might be the case that so much of what is available is really pretty good equipment. Whether the reader likes a piece by a company ultimately does not effect the quality of the product. Some stupid people will automatically trash a piece of gear because they don't like the company or their advertising budget but that trashing doesn't change the quality of the equipment it points out the trashers foolishness. I have never owned a CJ piece but I assume they make pretty good stuff since lots of other people like it.
Back to AudiogoN, reveiwers here are not paid for their writing. They paid to be able to write it. The reason for favorable reviews is fairly obvious to the wise: people bought the equipment because they auditioned it and thought it sounded good enough to spend their limited budget. It would be unethical to review something that the author has not spent a significant ammount of time auditioning in their own home. This precludes, for the most part, the possibility of reviews by people who have not invested their cash in the item. It has nothing to do with advertising budgets or magazine articles. Has anyone ever bought a piece of gear based on the quality of an ad??? I doubt it but I must concede it is possible.
Another reason for the positive reviews in the mags might be the case that so much of what is available is really pretty good equipment. Whether the reader likes a piece by a company ultimately does not effect the quality of the product. Some stupid people will automatically trash a piece of gear because they don't like the company or their advertising budget but that trashing doesn't change the quality of the equipment it points out the trashers foolishness. I have never owned a CJ piece but I assume they make pretty good stuff since lots of other people like it.
Back to AudiogoN, reveiwers here are not paid for their writing. They paid to be able to write it. The reason for favorable reviews is fairly obvious to the wise: people bought the equipment because they auditioned it and thought it sounded good enough to spend their limited budget. It would be unethical to review something that the author has not spent a significant ammount of time auditioning in their own home. This precludes, for the most part, the possibility of reviews by people who have not invested their cash in the item. It has nothing to do with advertising budgets or magazine articles. Has anyone ever bought a piece of gear based on the quality of an ad??? I doubt it but I must concede it is possible.