Magazine Ethics - TAS

The fact of the matter is that TAS reviews are purely subjective by a bunch of old men who can’t hear squat just like in the other print publication that is in circulation in the US. The only objective reviews that are available are in Stereophile which used to be the exclusive domain of John Atkinson and are now supplemented with test bench reviews from Paul Miller of HiFi News that is now the British sister publication of Stereophile since they’re currently owned by the same publisher AV Tech.

As many here have pointed out the ambiguity of reviews in general the test bench reports seem to be increasingly influenced by the advertisers as the data provided from the tests is less strait forward and harder to decipher when it comes to the percentage of distortion vs output power versus vs frequency for both harmonic and intermodulation distortion. They no longer state the calculated voltage as it translates to watts for a given load and makes it difficult for a layman to determine if an amplifier is actually meeting the manufactures specification for RMS power output from 20Hz to 20Khz for their stated distortion claims. Pretty shady, especially when it comes to tube amplification where output power is always stated by the manufactures at 1Khz only and significantly overstates power output capability. The actual clean power envelope for any tube amp is merely a fraction of this figure RMS from 20Hz - 20Khz.

I just read the RH editorial .  Essentially he argues that he reviews high end stuff that he personally can’t afford, and that in order to be able to evaluate the effect of an individual component, then everything else need stay constant.

  He attempts to address the favoritism that this might induce towards his benefactors by stating that he runs their disfavor by occasionally refusing a long term loan.

  His first point has some logic, but I don’t buy the second point.  While I haven’t read his magazine for a few years I don’t remember to many-if any-negative remarks towards his favorite manufacturers.  It isn’t reasonable to pretend to be not influenced by such largesse

I've been a hobbyist for 40 years and been reading TAS, Stereophile, HiFi News and several now defunct mags. I believe that most, if not almost all, modern equipment is good enough that there are no dogs. With 99% good to great, much of the differences amount to system matching, your tastes, your music, and quality control. The days when a reviewer can conclude that component A is universally 'glassy and hard' are gone. If you're looking for thumbs up or thumbs down on $30,000 amp, recalibrate your mind. You need to listen to the piece in your system and with your ears. If you're shopping somewhere that doesn't allow a 15 or 30 day home trial, shop elsewhere! Stop looking to TAS to make you feel good (or bad) about your decision. I would prefer if they gave advise on system matching, comments about component quality and construction and some idea of the reputation of the manufacturer. 

I’m a little perplexed by one dimension of the controversy. If a reviewer of a product keeps the product on long-term loan from the manufacturer, isn’t the fact that he wants to keep the product in his system indefinitely evidence that he likes the product? Shouldn’t we expect a positive review of a product a reviewer chooses to keep? Am I missing something here?