Nope, you have it 100% right.
I recently had an informative discussion with a manufacturer's rep ( I won't be disclosing names here). The rep was upset because he had submitted his product to a reviewer with a lot of technical knowledge, but lacking in the following areas..1) his room was poorly set up and not optimized at all for sound, 2) His ancillary gear was far from resolving and nowhere near the SOTA. The reviewer gave the piece in question a 'luke warm' review for SQ. The rep was upset because he knew of the fact that the reviewer was not going to be able to really put his piece through its paces, and because he also realized that the reviewer's "luke warm" review was in the reviewer's mind a rave! However, the technical merits of the piece in question were highly lauded....which meant nothing to the rep; and rightly so IMO.
So if I understand correctly, the reviewer had bona fide technical expertise, maybe even an engineer, but had a poorly set up system,
in a room not optimized for audio. I will give him a pass on ancillary gear, since that may be a matter of taste and budget. But bad component matching is a red flag.
The review was essentially bunk from a subjective view because the product was not set up and used properly.
The worst part of it is did not serve the reader. The conclusion was, technical merits "great", sound "ok".
So how many audiophiles are going to audition or buy this product based on just the fact the technical merits were great?
I will take a review by someone who knows how to properly set up a system to the room, match gear correctly, and understands
the nuances of synergy over some propeller head who can't do such as noted with all his "technical knowledge", he knew didley squat about setting up a
hifi system.
This is story is not unusual.
