I've always had great respect for the writers of "Stereophile Guide to Home Theatre", many of whom also happen to be industry professionals of note. I had the privilage of meeting Michael Fremer, arguably one of the most controversial writers from SGHT at the Heathrow show earlier this year. Here is a classic example of how a review should be written. The hardware looked at by MF early last year is still one of the best disc spinners on the planet, the Ayre Acoustics D1. MF's review consists of some five pages in total. Page one and two is a superb overview of the machine as a whole. As if thats not enough, on page three, he lists the Ayres full specification right down to the warranty period. Page four is dedicated to the review system, again, very important information. Page five briefly looks at the fact that paying for the progressive scan option may not be a good idea if your projection device (or other) requires more than 480p for optimum performance. Page 1 http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showarchives.cgi?6:0 Page 2 http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showarchives.cgi?6:1 Page 3 http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showarchives.cgi?6:2 Page 4 http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showarchives.cgi?6:3 Page 5 http://www.guidetohometheater.com/showarchives.cgi?6:4 To the lurkers of What Hi Fi There are a handful of classy US magazines that produce reviews like this month after month. Folks on this forum (and others) have already mentioned the fact that you are doing a great injustice to your readers, fellow enthusiasts, and yourselves. Time for sweeping changes perhaps? Or maybe I should keep subscribing to the likes of SGHT, TPV and WSR?????? and leave you guys in your respective coma's.