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

@johnread57 

where have I gone? Nowhere; just seeing how this has taken on a life of its own 

 

@soix

In 15 years of reviewing I was never constrained from saying anything negative. Over that time I only wrote one negative review

I guess everyone gets a prize, kinda thing. Everyone is above average. No normal distribution which may be described as a bell curve.

Never constrained from saying anything negative. No, a better way of saying it is that you were perhaps sufficiently rewarded by writing only positive things.

Fraud. Yes, you can quote me on that.

 

@noske So, you purport to know my actual experience better than I do?  You’re absolutely misguided and clueless, and you can quote me on that. 

@soix I know nothing of your actual experience.  I only know what you have written on these esteemed pages.

Should I be misguided, please share with the community here that in your 15 years of being a reviewer exactly why you provided only one negative review.

And for the sake of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt, define what constitutes a "negative review".

I know nothing of your actual experience.

@noske That’s correct, you don’t.  Yet you still write this presupposing my reviews were influenced to be positive…

Never constrained from saying anything negative. No, a better way of saying it is that you were perhaps sufficiently rewarded by writing only positive things.
 

As I’ve said before, at no time as a reviewer was I ever influenced to write anything in any way other than what I heard.  If I was I would no longer write for that publication.  Period.

Should I be misguided, please share with the community here that in your 15 years of being a reviewer exactly why you provided only one negative review.  And for the sake of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt, define what constitutes a "negative review".

Again, and as I’ve stated before, by the time a product rises to the point of getting a review it’s either a product from an established manufacturer who knows what they’re doing or a new product that is garnering a lot of interest due to good performance.  Either way, it’s very, very rare a reviewer receives a components that just sounds “bad.”  The one product I did write a negative review on didn’t sound good to me and I wrote it up as such, and had I gotten another product that disappointed I would’ve had no problem writing another negative review.  That said, no product is perfect, which is why I always fully disclosed areas where I thought a review component was better or worse relative to a competitive product.  Is that enough clarity for you?