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- 

128x128zavato
Post removed 
heretobuy
137 posts
 

It would be desirable to have a comparison with the previous iteration of each piece of equipment reviewed, but that would mean you'd have to own the earlier iteration of every piece of equipment you review. I think any reviewer who does have access to the earlier version of equipment under review would naturally compare them, and I've seen quite a few reviews that do such comparisons. But I think buyers who are thinking of upgrading from Mark I to Mark II of a piece of equipment would be a rather small part of the interested readership. It's far more useful to compare the piece at hand with its competitors.

mrskeptic
262 posts
 

They don't want to compare their newest stuff to the older stuff because then people would realize there is almost never any difference in how it sounds. They change things cosmetically, add in some marketing buzz words, and voila! Oh, and raise the price, the real goal.

Post removed 
Post removed 
More to discover