I thought the Perfect Vision review sounded less like an objective product evaluation and more like gratuitous flattery in an attempt to woo for more advertising dollars. I, personally, would have preferred some actual measurements, and perhaps a list of "high points" and "low points." Something with some substance, not an attempt at audiophile poetry and "mental masturbation."

For example, the reviewer wrote, "I didn't just hear a smoother upper range, but... a greater sense of dynamic ebb and flow, and a more expressive, and hence involving, presentation." For a moment, I thought I was attending a wine and cheese party at a local art gallery. Of course, I'm not much of an audiophile, so maybe you other guys appreciated this review more than I.

There seems to be a growing trend in AV magazines to move away from what little objectivity they once had in an effort to cater to advertising dollars. Sound and Vision recently decided against providing measurements of Sony's new DA4ES receiver with all channels driven, since Sony "didn't design it to perform that way"?!?