I can appreciate when a reviewer provides an honest assessment of a product. Reading how Stereophile deems every system as "best" becomes tiring. If people don't find a loudspeaker to be to their taste, then so be it. I have no personal need for other people to like Avalons.
However, this review has a number of statements which undermines it's integrity and suggests some type of agenda. This reviewer comments about poor build quality, how the speaker looks too similar to other Avalon models, and that he feels the tweeter is not placed in the proper position. He even admits that other Avalons he has heard only sound "decent enough". To say that Avalon has poor build quality is laughable, but I'm sure the company is not laughing.
FWIW, someone's ears I trust said the Transcendent was one of the best speakers at RMAF 2010, and the room sounded better than the Kaiser room. Other reviews speak nothing about the "dismal" performance, if anything is to be trusted from any review. Interestingly, Alan Sircom, in his review, mentioned that the CES 2011 room was so packed with acoustic treatment, that the sound seemed to actually suffer.
I believe the reviewer is entitled to their opinion, but as we all know, it should be tempered with the caveat of show conditions and he should hold-back the personal attacks. In the end, this review contributes nothing of value and underscores the potential influence these people can exert on a company trying to create new products to fill varying niches. I also see this reviewer totally roasted the Venture speaker based upon show conditions as well.