Reason is that he has no method to determine what is or is not good.
He uses his critical listening skills.
Everything can sound "good" if you play well recorded music on it.
That's true, but good recordings can also reveal differences in equipment. Steve often uses Chesky Records' releases, which were recorded with two microphones in a natural environment with no dynamic compression applied. He was present at many Chesky sessions when those same records where made.
There is no critical listening ability or objective measurements are involved in what he does.
If by "critical listening ability" you mean getting to at least level 8 in Harman's quick-switching ABX tests with the goal to identify various distortions, then what you say may be true. I doubt Steve ever used that test. However, the subjective evaluation approach to "critical listening" is quite different. According to my knowledge, it is best described in Robert Harley's book in the chapter called "Becoming a Better Listener", which I myself used to learn (and still keep improving) critical listening skills. I recently tried Harman's software too and got to level 7 quickly. I'd say there are some commonalities in Harman's and Harley's approaches as both teach how to isolate and analyze various aspects of sound reproduction, but with different goals: one is focused on detecting distortions, another on finding out which of the components subjectively perceived as more enjoyable to one's ears.
I have sat with a large group of high-end audio retailers in the same blind test and find them they can't tell whatsoever what is colored about the sound they are hearing. Research shows that such people don't have good listening abilities.
Very low sample size, doesn't prove what Steve G hears or doesn't hear.
Why would you put any trust in what he has to say where he can't even critically evaluate plainly audible differences in speaker sound?
No professional reviewer asks their audience to trust them blindly, quite the opposite they say to listen with your own ears. Any sane person would not buy a piece of gear based on a single reviewer's opinion. Those are
subjective reviews, nothing more.
It is just that it is plainly obvious that there is no real skill involved in much of what he talks about.
This is your subjective opinion. What's seem obvious to you doesn't seem that obvious to me.
A tube power supply in a DAC powered by an old and obsolete DAC chip. Tell me why you would believe such a DAC is "crazy good".
Is all old equipment bad? I don't think so. Can it be "crazy good" to someone? Certainly.
Back to your statement, this is what he said in his written review:
What is that comparison for heaven's sake? One has a sweet sound but the other is pure? One has good soundstage depth but the other has clarity?
And oh, veils were removed as if we have not heard that before.
All of this is word salad made to make sense to reader/viewer but in reality has no substance behind it. It is fantasy description of audio based on faulty evaluations.
Steve's words make sense to me. I understand what he is talking about while describing his subjective impressions.
"Sweet sound" - that's about having soft nice treble, that sounds just right, not harsh or fatiguing
"Veils removed" - "veiling" is lack of transparency, which means lifelike immediacy that makes every detail clearly audible
"Soundstage depth" - doesn't need explanation. Everyone, whose speakers positioned properly, know this aspect of sound reproduction and understand that perception of depth can vary between different components
"Sluggish" - this is about transients being less articulated
Having said all that and being an owner of the Ares DAC I don't quite agree with everything Steve said about it. But it's totally OK for the subjective impressions to vary between people, rooms, systems, tastes, etc.