Forget Consumer Reports; there was that scandal where one of the reviewers on the speaker review project was a personal friend of Amar Bose; of course the Bose recieved glowing reviews. There is nothing wrong with doing business with the folks who offer their products for review as long as you are up-front and provide full disclosure; allowing the readers the opportunity to make an informed decision as to whether to accept the reviews outcome. Anyone who relies on a review to purchase something w/o either hearing it or contacting someone you trust who has heard it is taking a gamble and should accept that fact; even a totally unbiased review doesn't address your needs in your system in your house.
It puzzles me when people get excited about minute differences in percieved sound quality; disregarding effects of weather and humidity and mood. We ask of reviewers the impossible task of defining a set of criteria based upon intangibles; then committing to a position and a judgement to be universally applied. Then individuals state requirements that contradict each other; and use test procedures that disregard common sense. Example; using single driver systems with high power SS amps and classical music. Rough example but thats the idea. The whole concept becoming self-defeating. Or they run low power tubes on inefficient speakers, or require beautifull finishes on inexpensive units. The price dictates where the money goes, for a phenomenal finish means a sacrifice on parts etc. Or they have a closet sized space in which to listen but want 15" woofers. My point? Figure out what a review will do for you, if you think it will make a choice of equipment easier, you have the wrong concept of the reviewers art. Example; I bought my Pi 4's based upon a conversation with Wayne on the phone, never having heard them or of them; and knowing no one who had. I bought based on our talk and knew full well that was just as good a reason to purchase as any other, including that of reading some review. No regrets.