I read the review of the 303T and noted the usual glowing praise, then noted with interest the problems JA found with CD playback in his measurements section. Then I had a thought, went back and checked for the author... and it was MF.
I think this is the third time in the last ~2-3 years that I have read an MF review of a piece of equipment that had a basic, measureable flaw - yet he raved about the equipment as if there was nothing wrong. That leaves JA in the unenviable position of having to write something that acknowledges the problem without overtly criticising MF.
I can't remember the exact previous articles I am thinking of, although I am sure there were two, and one of them was of some interconnect/cable that measured so badly that I believe JA went so far as to say that he couldn't recommend it. Yet Mikey's review was totally glowing. (The measurement was so bad that tyoical arguments like "maybe it actually enhanced the sound by degrading the signal so badly" surely couldn't apply in this case, as JA acknowledged with his not-recommended comment.)
The flaw with the 303T doesn't seem anywhere near as huge as that with the interconnect/cable situation, but for reviewers who claim to be able to detect the most subtle of differences between pieces of equipment, the omission of any comment that acknowledges some sort of problem seems damning.
I think it's admirable that Stereophile makes these issues public by printing the apparently-unadulterated review alongside the post-review measurements. And in his own defence, MF will no doubt say that he wrote what he heard (as I recall he did after the cable issue) and obviously no-one can say otherwise.
But how many more such reviews can be published before one has to ask whether MF is a reliable reviewer?
(This is not an attack on MF, it's an attempt to ask a real question about reviewing accuracy. But I'm not sure how I could post it without referencing his name and what I recall of the articles involved.)