2. amps-preamps
  3. 180737-107

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- 

zavato
bigkidz
3,416 posts
 

yeah sure like the reviewer has one just sitting there to compare and why would they do that at all.  They are there to promote the industry not say well the older model was almost as good for a few grand less.  How would that help a manufacturer at all?

 

BTW if you think reviewers make a living at this stuff you are wrong!



 

jerryg123's avatar
jerryg123
3,429 posts
 

Required? 

Nothing, other than they should really listen to the piece of equipment other than toss the gauges on it.  You know like that one website. 

dodgealum's avatar
dodgealum
1,409 posts
 

If the word "mandatory" is freaking people out how about each publication developing its own "template" that their stable of reviewers would adhere to in order to insure some continuity and comprehensiveness to formally reviewed products. If I were the editor of such a magazine or online publication, I would suggest the following:

  1. Room dimensions along with any room treatments;
  2. Associated equipment;
  3. Statement of preferences--as an audiophile, what am I shooting for in terms of sonics;
  4. Relationship with manufacturer--any financial interest, discount offered on purchases, history with brand, etc.

Seems to me this would help the buying public make better sense of the reviewers findings.

jl35
4,155 posts
 

would be nice, but I agree, completely impractical/impossible to always have the previous unit on hand for comparison...and then, there are so many other products it would be great to compare it to...not just the XP20 but an ARC, a CJ, JRDG etc. 

mitch2
4,213 posts
 

I would place the responsibility on the manufacturer to explain/demonstrate to their clients what is different between the former version and an upgraded or updated version.

I place the responsibility on the reviewer to,

  1. At a minimum, use partnering equipment that would reasonably be expected to be used with the review equipment - i.e., no mis-matches, and to
  2. Compare the reviewed equipment with comparable competitors available in the market at the time of the review.

I was fortunate to have seen reviews by the same reviewer, of my new DAC and of the same manufacturer’s former DAC. The direct comparisons were certainly helpful in knowing what I should expect. However, that will mostly not be practical, as several here have pointed out. 6moons usually does a good job of making meaningful comparisons, IMO.

More to discover