I respect Holt and Pearson the most. Holt is the best, period! He is humble, honest, and straightforward. He has good listening skills, good music taste with good insight and perspective from an average audiophile's point of view. My next favorite is HP and not for the same reason I like Holt. Harry is Harry and that's ok. He has a point of view that is very consistent and has really contributed to our audiophile language in being able to describe what he is hearing. I give him credit also for keeping S.O.T.A. system over a period of time. He compares equipment against his reference so therefore you know where Harry's listening reference is. Many other reviewers don't own complete systems and just rotate equipment under review and operate from memory on past components. Reviewers I always try to read first are Jonaton Valin (good taste and always music tips), Mike Fremer (analog city), Anthony Cordesman (objective with solid comparisons), Sam Telieg (funny, but I am sure misleads first time buyers with each article praising a new piece of equipment). There is wider group of reviewers that Wayne Donnelly (fair), Wayne Garcia (value point/fair) Ken Kessler (he tries) that are examples that most of our reviewers are trying to communicate some information to us that will be useful. So by knowing your own musicall preferences you can get a lot of useful information in Audiophile Magazines. Its just another source of opinions use it to what extent you want to, but always make your own choices. There are articles/writers that I find are a wasted of time. There's a category of reviewers that constantly praise the latest edition from the same manufactures regardless of component's true sonic characteristics. Jonaton Skull's gives me that uneasy feeling most of the time. There's a couple I dislike period. Michael Gindi's PHD (Ultimate Sound), Mike Tres review's (Listner) are full on delusions of grandeur and the absolute worst ration of bullshit to useful information written.
