To Diego Estan,
Great review of the Monitor Audio Gold 100 loudspeakers, and I liked the fact that you compare speakers, but I don’t understand why you told us that you like the Bowers & Wilkins more. I want to read about the differences, but the reviewer shouldn’t have preferences or shouldn’t express them. I want a review to be as objective as possible. Just how I feel, but I love your work.
I really appreciate your feedback, and I’m glad you liked the review.
I guess the only way I can address your comment is to say that I respect your opinion, and I’m sure many others would agree with you. But also, many others would disagree, and that’s ok.
I can only speak for myself here. As a reader, I actually agree with you in some ways, but not in others. I’m definitely an objectively leaning audiophile and a scientifically minded person. I’m a graphs-and-charts kind of guy. The perfect review for me would have a short intro, then description/specs, then set up and any observations with respect to use, then measurements, and finally objective comparisons to similarly priced products (preferably in bullet form in a table) -- that’s it.
But, I'm afraid my opinion is not shared by the majority of readers out there. Most readers likely want to see detailed descriptions of the reviewer’s experience of the sound through music examples, as well as the reviewer’s preference of one product over another, or a certain attribute of a product over another, as long as the differences are explained and the reasons for the preference are given. This way, readers get to learn what type of sound a given reviewer likes or is drawn to.
There's also the concept of Reviewers’ Choice for reviewed products across the SoundStage! Network. The only way to ascertain this is for the reviewer to convey through writing how much he/she liked the product, including when stacked up against the competition.
Thank you for taking the time to write me. . . . Diego Estan