Example of a piece o’ crap, useless review

The irony with audio reviews is that everyone hears differently.  A piece of audio gear that sounds good to one person may not sound good to another.

@jimmyblues1959 Exactly.  And this is why doing product comparisons in a review is so important.  When a reviewer just shares what he thinks about a product in isolation (as TAS habitually does) we’re only getting his take based on his ears.  But when the product is compared to something else we get a sense of relative differences, which I find adds very important context that can help us as readers form a clearer perspective of the sound of the review product regardless of how the reviewer hears things.  In other words, a comparison acts like a check and balance on the reviewer’s individual opinion and provides for a much more approachable and ultimately more useful review for the reader.  However, if you’ve read a reviewer long enough you get a sense of how he hears so you can compensate somewhat for his biases and still possibly glean some useful information out of the review, but this is still no substitute for doing a legit product comparison IMO.

@lewm wrote:

Also, "I did notice that a record brush slows everything down considerably, which was a minor annoyance." That ought not to be happening with the Roadrunner/Condor/Eclipse motor system up and running. Something is off.

This is misconception on the part of the reviewer.  The Condor/RR corrects for speed drift over time, it cannot adjust for the amount of drag that is applied with a record brush.  All belt drive tables will have this phenomenon due to belt creep.  Even the most powerful direct drive tables will loose speed synch if enough drag is applied.  None of this should happen while the stylus is in the groove.

In fact, one of the techniques that the Condor uses is NOT to apply correction in the presence of "unusual" amounts of drag; if we did, the speed would suddenly shoot up when the record brush is removed and would take longer to come back down to normal.  By not applying correction, the speed will slow while the brush is applied but will quickly return to normal as soon as the brush is removed.

Really, Part Time Audiophile as an example of good reviews?  Their stated policy is to NOT publish a bad review.  The puff pieces I've read on their site goes far beyond hagiography and would make even the most shameless fan boys blush.  No measurements at all.

@phoenixengr Point well taken.  Truth be told I haven’t read PTA reviews in a while but used to like his reviews back when he was on his own, so I probably shouldn’t have included them cause I’m not very familiar with their current reviews/writing staff.  Thanks for the redirect.

I agree with the OP that the TAS review lacks substance which is a real shame as there are technical specs in the Pyxi manual as well as several frequency response and noise plots that might put a little more meat on the bones of this review.

  The circuit of the Pyxi was designed by Wyn Palmer and he has published a very erudite white paper about the design as well as his personal philosophy on what makes a good phono stage and the science of psycho-acoustics.  It leans more technical than the review but is still a good read for anyone interested in the subject (the paper is about the Acrux phono stage which has not gone into production but is closely related to the Pyxi in design and execution):

Wyn Palmer White Paper

There are some reviewers I do like , Teajay , Reichert and Robert Harley.