what's your opinion on the magazine 'stereo review'??

Several posted links to american radio history.  This is a great site that has a downloadable library of SR, and High Fidelity, and Audio, and many other wonderful magazines.   Take some time and go through the back issues, paying specific attention to the period of about 1956-1965.  In the beginning, magazines were honest about reporting the actual quality of equipment under test.  Prose was polite, but there was no doubt if a component was deemed good, bad or average.  J Gordon Holt wrote for High Fidelity before starting Stereophile.  He left HF after a wrote a bad (but accurate) review, and an advertiser pulled ad spending.  Roy Allison was a frequent contributor to Audio magazine during this period.  By 1959 or 60 all were publishing specs and test results to support what they wrote.  Surprising how the test results often corresponded what we hear when listing to vintage components.  EX:  ABC integrated amp is rolled off in the bass- there it is on the FR graph- down 10db at 20hz.   Or DEF receiver needs a few DB of bass/treble adjustment to measure and sound "flat".   Back then, test results were used to confirm what was heard.  By 1965 SS was all the rage, and SS equipment measured flat, with vanishing levels of distortion, and indeed all amps sounded more or less the same because differences were now at the margins.  And that was enough for most listeners.  Eyeballs and ad money determine profits, and writing for the person signing the check is an easy way to get paid.  Hirsch was in interesting character.  He started in the mid 50's an published the Audio League Journal.  This publication pulled no punches when it came to reviewing !  He praised quality, and damned the turds.  He actually heard differences between components !   With the formation of HH Labs, and their eventually becoming a contract test lab, they sought to serve their paymasters, and the rest is history.