I noticed you guys were discussing star ratings earlier. I'd like to add my own two cents on it.
I personally feel the star rating is crap. Let me explain...
WE ALL suffer from new toy syndrome from time to time, and we all have different ears. There are instances where I've gotten something in and thought it was the greatest thing ever. A year later I sit down and listen to it and think it's not very good at all. There are things I've reviewed and love, while others who's opinion I highly respect have felt the opposite. The star ranking is a crap shoot, and should be seen as nothing more than an indicator of whether the reviewer likes it based on their preference. That goes for every review that is on Head-Fi for the most part.
If I really like something, and feel that they perform beyond their asking price it should get five stars. If we think it's good, why not make sure we tell everyone it is? I think all too often people make their purchase based just on how many stars it gets. Truth be told, purchases should be made based on understanding their own preferences, then looking for a product that matches them.
Star rating opens up a can of worms that consists of many variables, all of which can't be factored into a single star rating. If we are going to do stars, there should be a star ranking based on several separate criteria, and the final star ranking should be a mathematical average of all of them. Still, if it's done this way it's factoring every criteria equally. That isn't fair to people who hold particular criteria in higher regard than others.
Another thing, I don't get how some reviewers feel so inclined to be super critical with their star ranking like they're holding out for the mothership of earphones to beam them of into an alternative dimension of music we have yet to experience in order to give it five stars. Let's not be arrogant in how we rank things, but more informative to the community. Three stars is good, four stars is better, and five stars is best, knowhatamsayin?
The way I see it, for me and what I write, I want to keep things this simple:
5 stars = An awesome product that I highly recommend, arguably the best at its price range. Very few if any customers will be disappointed if they read my review and feel that the product matches their preference and purchases it.
4.5 stars = A really good product that performs very well, but I can think of a couple products that might possibly be a better option at that price range.
4 stars = A solid piece of gear that has some minor flaws that prevent it from being elite.
3.5 stars = A middle of the pack performer that doesn't match what the better products in it's price range can do. Not the worst but definitely not the best.
3 stars = A middle of the pack performer for it's asking price. Not a total waste of money, but they could have probably spent their money on something else and had better results.
2.5 stars = This is the lowest rating I will probably give a product before I tell a manufacturer that I can't review it. This is a product that is on the lower half of what I would consider satisfactory for it's price. There are many things to improve on, yet it still has some positives to point out.
Anything below 2.5 stars, I am offering to ship it back at my own expense. I don't want a company thinking I'm bailing on a review. I also offer constructive criticism of why I feel this way as well in hopes that they will use it to improve future products.
The point of reviewing is helping customers maximize their dollars, and without degrading manufacturers.