Zaikesman, I think that your opinion was very well stated. From what I have seen, you are an intelligent, well written audiophile.
And, that is simply my point.
I would have to include you in my list.
While I respect your post greatly, I do disagree. I do not hold that the reviewers of Stereophile are in their position because they are the best at what they do. In my opinion, their position is a result of many factors. Love for audio/music, education, determination in following the path of being an audio reviewer, etc. Ability to write well, organize thought, develop the tools required for the job, etc. are skills that I believe many on this site have. And, as important as anything in life, some of it is fate/luck. Yes, luck.
One trivial example about this type of thing happening every day in life I have is about great high school friend of mine. Mickey Pergine. He was the quarterback on my high school football team. He came from a long line of quarterbacks, his uncle is John Pergine, who was a star at Notre Dame I believe. Mickey was one heck of a quarterback. A cannon for an arm, fearless in battle, the unique ability to make the right decision in the heat of the moment, 6'3" - 210 lbs. He was a Philadelphia Inquirer choice for All Area QB.
So why does no one on this site besides me know who he is? Well, Mickey wasn't the best of students. And, he kind of liked to have fun. Too much fun. Somehow, somewhere, along the way, all that he was the prototype for never materialized. Instead of talking of him in the company of QBs that came out of this area, Rich Gannon, Matt Blundin, Steve Bono, and Glenn Foley, he is just some obscure person I am using in my trivial example.
I am the first to admit I review the reviewers. I critique the critics. This is a hobby that I love. Stereophile is a magazine that I love. I have been a more or less loyal supporter/subscriber since 1987. I put my money where my mouth is. My current round of being a subscriber began in 1998, and is paid for until 2005. In my mind, I have earned the right to say what is right with the magazine. And, also, what is wrong with the magazine.
I have a very low tolerance for incompetance at what is the paragon of our hobby. I do not genuflect at a reviewer. I am upset when Michael Fremer does not have a balanced interconnect. I am dumbfounded when he expresses surprise that an Audio Research power amp is bright or forward. I complain that John Atkinson is a slave to his measurements. I do not understand how tube equipment is not a part of the ancillary components he uses to evaluate audio components. I wonder how Sam Tellig can describe the sound of a component if he evaluates it in a very small context(both system and music). I am amazed that the only piece of equipment that Jonathan Scull reviewed with a non - stratospheric price was lynched. I wonder how Kalman Rubinson can use a 1988 Pioneer PD-7100 CD player as reference equipment. I fall asleep when I read a review of his that robs every ounce of passion that this hobby fires within me, making a review sometimes feel like reading a legal docuement or textbook. I complain when people who make their living, and are held us as THE experts, make fundamental mistakes in terms of perhaps the most important aspects of audio, room interface with the system, and system synergy.
I guess me noticing these things is heightened when I read some of the insightful threads on Audiogon. As far as people not measuring up to the official reviewers, if they are anything like me, a great deal of their posts are hammered out during lulls in the action at work, or at home. I often use Audiogon, for better or worse, as a means to turn to something when I need a break.
I remain steadfast in my belief that no one at the magazines is indespensible, including Jonathan Scull, and that there are many here among us who could get the job done.
