I am confused by your confusion, they, the reviewers, are in a position to listen
to equipment I cannot, and generally have a much larger range of equipment
that they have also listened to by way of comparison. I do not need them to
assess equipment I do listen, but for equipment that I do not have a chance to
listen to. So the "basic attributes" means clear description of what a piece
sounds like, not basic as simple, but a basic characterization that is accurate
though it will vary in its implementation based on associated equipment.
I don't think reviewers hear any better than anyone else, but for the most part
they do have the opportunity to hear equipment and the time and inclination to
write about their experience. Now if I just thought they were whoring
mercenaries paid to write copy for the manufacturer I would probably indeed
discard their views for the garbage they are, but I don't think most reviewers are
that incompetent or intentionally lying and trying to mislead - those that are
can be smelled from a mile away and they don't last too long. For example, I
find when Art Dudley listens to equipment and describes it, it is pretty darn
similar to my experience when I hear that piece of equipment, and we both
seem to like similar sound.
So is cynicism merited due to the conflict of
interests and financial ties to advertisers? Maybe. My view is not so jaundiced as
to discredit their ability to describe the sound of what they hear, and that is at
least useful for be given a sense of equipment to consider. Or I could listen to
folks on Audiogon that own a piece of equipment they are looking to sell in a
few months (or those that have a financial interest in said product, often not
disclosing that fact) and believe their praise for that piece of equipment. I take
both sources of information with a grain of salt, but in both cases it brings
products to my attention that I might want to listen to, then do kitten to, and
then decide for myself if I like it or not, no matter what Fremer said.
