I'm wondering why do you need to read a review for a product you already own?
Well, how are you going to know whether you should like it if you don't read what an on-line influencer thinks about it?
“One day in the mid-1990s, my friend J and I...
Stereophile tries too hard.
This sort of thing has been going on forever, really too long, and underscores an embarrassing depth of narcissistic self-absorption typical within the hi-fi 'press'. The idea that readers hang on an influencer's personal life history, instead of wanting to find read something intelligent and meaningful about the gear under review. I call it the 'gonzo' style of hi-fi reviewing, except
1) most hi-fi writers are only marginal journalists, and
2) they are certainly not reviewers. They are more like Internet Influencers. In fact, that is exactly what they are. Only not as nice to look at, since they are never trendy young women.
Gonzo-style became popular with Hunter Thompson... the writer injecting himself as the main part of his story. Now, Thompson was able to do it, and he was successful, because he was funny, mostly relevant, always hard hitting, and had a way with words. Let's face it, most hi-fi writers are not that interesting, personally, nor are they particularly good writers. Who wants to read about some hi-fi jockey's reminiscence, three decades past? [I guess you could say that Fremer is kind of interesting, in a bizarre and goofy way, when he writes about doing idiotic things-- like rewiring his house so mom can better enjoy the stereo. That's pretty funny, albeit in an unintentional way.]
Historically, reviewers were men who actually investigated electrical and acoustic properties of a device. That is, they actually tested the thing. Go through archived pages of
Audio, Stereo Review, and
High Fidelity. Compare. Today, all you read about is how a particular piece of gear makes the writer 'feel'. It's a feminized style of reviewing, without real women doing the writing.
Gordon Holt was probably the first to move away from an objective angle, but it took Harry Pearson and his circus to forever seal the deal.
Second generation Peter Aczel attempted to bring it all back home, and was generally successful, but not long lasting (Aczel also possessed some literary talent; coming from Madison Ave where you had to be literate in order to get and keep a job. That fact helped make his copy interesting).
Today, Amir at ASR, and John Atkinson, are pretty much it--at least from a traditional 'reviewing' standpoint, and as far as any consistent output. There are a few others, but none as productive. Of course there are big differences: Atkinson gets to measure the high priced spread. He can do that because manufactures understand that the influencers will be doing most of the talking, and will consequently cover for anything questionable that he shows in his graphs and charts. For his part, Amir has to rely on whatever people send him, so you don't expect to read about the same kind of gear; usually it's just the 'low-hanging' fruit.
Editorially, you sometimes have to 'read between the lines' when it comes to Atkinson's analysis/conclusions, but never with Amir.