The Mahler thing is largely a regurgitation of the info/impressions I gave him of high end HPs through tons of PMs over the course of maybe half a year.
I don't trust stereophile, 6moons, etc whatsoever and will only go to one of those sites if I'm trying to find out something specific about the gear (year it came out, etc) or to see measurements. That pretty much leaves forum reviews...
I like forums reviews much more than professional reviews, but I either don't trust or don't agree with a large portion of users. I don't trust people that give their input on everything, because they usually fall into 1 of 2 categories:
1. People that write long reviews of lots of gear. Usually seen on HF. There are a couple of genuine reviewers, but most seem more interested in building up a name for themselves or getting free shit for positive feedback.
2. People that comment on every piece of gear. Seen on every forum. These are usually people that go to lots of meets or have a local Hifi store and get to listen to things for 30 seconds in noisy conditions, oftentimes with other variables in the chain they're not extremely familiar with. Very misleading and it shows in the inaccuracy of their impressions.
Removing more people from the list, I also don't trust people that listen with their eyes. There are so many people that, I think, already know what buzzwords they're gonna use before they even listen to a piece of gear. That could be subconscious, I'm not sure. Are there tubes? Talk about warmth. Solid state? Say it's harsh. Does it measure very well? Say something about it being 'sterile'. Is there wood involved? Mention it sounding 'organic'. This goes on and on. I've even noticed what seems to be a pretty high correlation in terms used depending on the color of the gear (copper colors > silver, manufacturers).
What remains are the people whose impressions I can trust, however even lots of these people are missing something I find important: experience. The two components that make up experience are quality time spent with very high quality gear and quality time spent with a breadth of different gear. Going to meets is a great way to get experience, but it doesn't compare with actually having that piece of gear in your home and in your system, thus I wouldn't classify it as quality time.
The importance of having quality time with very high quality gear is that it raises the bar for what you know is possible with a headphone system. A person who has only owned Audeze and Grados won't know what an expansive soundstage is, but they probably think they're hearing it...until they upgrade to a T1 and then they're hearing what they consider an expansive soundstage...until they upgrade to a HD800 and then they're hearing what actually is an expansive soundstage for HPs. Despite this, they were arguing with the HD800 owners about their Audeze and Grados having a nice soundstage (because they're coming from iBuds) at the beginning until they actually know better. Basically, think MacedonianHero. Now apply this to every aspect of sound reproduction and couple it with the constantly revolving door of HF noobs and you probably start to see why this is a problem.
The importance of having quality time spent with lots of different gear is that it gives you the ability to rank and sort the different aspects of sound signature for all the gear you've had said high quality time with.
What's this all mean? I generally find myself agreeing most with the people that own/have owned/have borrowed lots of different high quality gear in their own home and in their own system. purk, muppetface, anetode, radio_hea
d, prepro, marv, spritzer, mahler, etc etc etc. Just giving examples, not trying to name drop.
Everybody has biases that you learn to read and acclimate to, and once you do I find you can get some very reliable info.
Extra protip: Generally, if the review rambles on and on, they're probably making a lot of shit up in their mind.
Poll
