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 gen erally 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_head, 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.

Milos, I think I see where you are comming from. If one convinces oneself that an 009 or an 007 + KG super amps are The Benchmark, then a reviewer that has burned his ears to those references, would proly have more credibility in the eyes of someone that agrees with such a benchmark (note Stax products & KG "not-products" don't seem to sound the same though... at least the Stax ones don't - have no ample experiense with KG wires with gain). This is to some extent evident.

Problem is, are those limited options indeed The Benchmark for a quality setup?

I personally don't think so.

Also, do I agree with u in considering Preproman a credible reviewer?

Nope.

Am I right in my own beliefs?

Dunno. Who cares. I'm just a Mexican Ewok.

The Mahler thing isn't important and I'm not trying to claim credit for anything.  I get a little upset whenever I see that name for a specific reason, so it was more of a jab than anything.  People who have been around a while probably kinda know what I'm talking about.  He put a ton of work into that thread and deserves every bit of lmader's adulation.

To be more clear: Do you ever get PMs from random people who ask for impressions/info?  For whatever reason I tend to get (or used to, when I posted more) those PMs with some frequency, usually about electrostats.  I'm sure Marv has received more DAC-related PMs than anybody would ever care to answer.  I don't mind though.  I actually much prefer giving impressions of gear through PM or email; I don't have to worry about hurting people's feelings or entering a fanboy warzone.  I can be much more open and honest.  If I could post like that in public I'd probably still post a lot.

I went back and checked one of the PM exchange threads I had with him and over the course of ~2 months there were over 11,000 words typed between the two of us, generally him asking me my thoughts on HPs or asking for info about specific HPs/amps.  That's 1 PM thread, and not including all the public posts directed toward him I made during that time.  This was before he ever owned an electrostat or had many of the high end dynamics in the review.  Reading that thread for the first time I did notice a high correlation between our rankings, as well as info and impressions I made of the high end headphones reviewed.  If I genuinely thought he was just some copy cat imposter, I wouldn't have mentioned him as having trustworthy ears.

That could be a total coincidence, and even if it's not I really don't care.  Again, that comment was more a jab in passing and not meant to redirect the thread. 


On that note, and actually related to the thread: I do think the best way to get honest impressions is via PM/email/IRC/in person, by far.  There's way less tip-toeing involved and people cut straight to the chase.  You guys should come on the changstar IRC some time - it's a refreshing approach to the community.

erm, really? his homepage at http://noaudiophile.com/index.php announces:

"Headphones suck, and why: A dissertation on the folly of ear cans"

LOL 

Been waiting for that one considering the rest of his article are funny, useful, and informative.  I wonder WTF he's going to say?

I think we should be REALLY careful of reviewers who gloss over serious glaring issues with the equipment or try their best to deflect the issue away.

This is how Michael Piskor(24bit), Headfonics flips issues around.

What the hell does he even mean in that quote?

"I hate treble and these cans barely have any so I like them. I'm afraid to say they don't have any because that would lose sales"

Been waiting for that one considering the rest of his article are funny, useful, and informative.  I wonder WTF he's going to say?

Yeah I'm curious as well. I just wonder if he's ever had exposure to well amped, truly HQ cans. If I had only ever heard high priced Grados, an HD800 on the wrong setup, the T1, and the ED10, I would probably say that high-end cans sound like shit. Many of them obviously do.