Amen to that. Fastest way to ruin reviews, demand what they must and must not be. This is probably a tough one to explain, but people's opinions are really only valid to the extent they are the sincere opinion of the listener/writer. The more you let anything intrude on that, the more you are reading about the influence and not the genuine impression. In other words, if you are gonna dictate what must be in a review, go get the gear, listen, and write your own review. Probably be just as good if not better. And then you are in the game, not Monday morning quarterbacking.
What should be mandatory in every professional published review-
When testing a company's newest amp, preamp, etc, and it is a refinement of a prior product that was on the market, ie, a Mark II, an SE version, a .2 etc, it should be mandatory that the review includes a direct comparison with the immediate predecessor. IMHO, it's not enough to know ion the product is good; it's also important to know if there is a meaningful difference with the immediate predecessor.
I'm fan of Pass Labs, and I just looked at a review of an XP22 preamp. I find it very disturbing that there was no direct comparison between the XP22 and the XP20. And this lack of direct comparison is ubiquitous in hi-end published reviews, across all brands of gear tested. I don't blame the gear manufacturers, but rather the publications as I view this as an abdication of journalistic integrity.
Opinions welcome-
- ...
- 93 posts total
- 93 posts total