When a Reviewer "likes" something

I use reviews mainly for information and an indication of something I might like to listen to. Nothing more. On this level, and pretty much only on this level, I find that reviews can be helpful.

What really irks me is when a reviewer does not make any comparisons to another product during a review and just states what they "think" of the sound of a product on its own. That is just about worthless to me, although I'm sure it makes their job a lot easier. And when they omit the equipment they're using in their reference system it makes it even more useless as I have no idea what they're using as a mental reference.

TAS does this all the time and it drives me nuts. They'll frequently make no direct comparisons to anything else in the review and then list all the equipment in their reference system EXCEPT the corresponding component to that which they're reviewing. That's just pure cowardice imo in an effort to not be held accountable for their completely unsubstantiated opinions (which I view more as guesses than actual opinion). ARGH. Does this bother anyone else?

First off, I only read S'phile consistently so have limited experience with other mags although I have read them.

I kinda of look at it like a catalogue; don't have B&M to visit here unless it is appointment only. (I miss audio stores)

I read reviews, mostly those whose writing I like, purely entertainment.

I have often wondered how a reviewer can form an opinion of a piece of gear when their "reference" system seems to be in a constant state of flux?

Seems changing pieces changes the baseline the piece of equipment is being evaluated from so naturally sound will change.

I can see where after an initial review is completed, using the reviewers static reference, a follow-up could be used to address swapping other pieces of gear but the original evaluation should be done without any system changes.

Soix,
You're right, comparisons should be part of audio equipment reviews. 6 Moons does a very good job of openly making comparisons, often multiple competitors in the review.JV of TAS reviewed the CJ GAT preamp and made no mention of the Audio Research Anniversary preamp he had reviewed prior and praised. Why avoid such an obviously comparison? Just give an honest impression if you're going through the effort of reviewing both
Regards, .

Forgot to mention in my post, I concur with those who have said the knowledge on this site is the best. Mostly end users and some pretty darn smart ones too!

I cruise other sites but none seem to capture my attention like this one.

I am always amazed by the comments here alluding to some ulterior motive by the mainstream audio press to push the product of the day. I have yet to read of a true, factual example of this actually happening by one of the writers for TAS or Stereophile. You may not agree with their opinions or methodology, but this is entertainment, not a scientific journal. Those two magazines are no different than Car and Driver, or Cycle World or any other enthusiast magazine I subscribe to. I happen to like the style of writing of some of the writers, even if they were writing off topic. But to suggest fraud or collusion, as some here have, is simply off base unless you have specific factual support for such claims against a specific writer. Otherwise its just more internet crap to keep getting repeated on sites like this.
And for those who think a month with a piece of equipment is not enough, how long do you think a full time reviewer should spend. Is 40 hours a week for 4 weeks not enough. And if they get paid by the review, are they only allowed to review 12 pieces of equipment a year. If that's so, should they make $5000 per review so they can make a decent living. Get real. No one here listens 160 hours a month, yet many have very strongly held opinions on gear.
And while knowing what the reviewers equipment is might be helpful if he has something the same as yours, it is useless otherwise. There is simply too many different options for any of us to be familiar with how each sounds.
And as for glowing reviews, that issue has come up in my other enthusiast magazines, and the plain fact is that there is very little bad equipment being built these days, especially in the high end range these magazines concentrate on. Except for some garage builder putting out a prototype, most gear being reviewed is well built. Do you want the reviewer to look for crap just so he can say something stinks. Why waste his time reviewing crap when there is so much more interesting stuff to review that is much more enjoyable.
I will say that I gloss over anything to do with digital sound. I just dont care, and I find it boring to read about. that may be why subscriptions are down. In the old days, there were real differences between components, and new ideas being tried. Today, everything has improved to the point that for electronics especially, there is little difference beyond power ratings, at least as compared to cartridges or speakers.
So, unless you have specific actual knowledge of some improper behaviour by a specific reviewer or magazine, and are willing to put it in writing here, give it up and just enjoy the entertainment.