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
noske
783 posts
 

@soix 

The one product I did write a negative review on didn’t sound good to me 

 Is that enough clarity for you?

Yes.

jerryg123's avatar
jerryg123
3,429 posts
 

That the reviewer must listen to the product. 

 

 

noske
783 posts
 

@soix 

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.

Well that just reduces the interest in any review to that of Bayesian logic and I copy from Wiki.  Dull, boring and handwaving reviews are just so not interesting.  Precise criticism and a skeptical approach is what I prefer.  But then I am not an audiophile.

Bayesian statistics is a theory in the field of statistics based on the Bayesian interpretation of probability where probability expresses a degree of belief in an event. The degree of belief may be based on prior knowledge about the event, such as the results of previous experiments, or on personal beliefs about the event.

soix
9,628 posts
 

Precise criticism and a skeptical approach is what I prefer.

@noske Just as I wouldn’t say something sounds good when it doesn’t, nor would I ever say something sounds bad when it doesn’t just to be “critical.” That’s the main reason why the product comparison sections are so critical as it’s possible to communicate what aspects of a review component’s sound was different, better, or worse compared to a similar product. To me, this is the most informative and useful part of any review and why I can’t stand TAS reviews because they rarely bother to do any product comparisons and I find their reviews to be “dull, boring, and hand waving” reviews I find next to useless. Again, just my take FWIW.

 

ps
757 posts
 

Certified results of a recent hearing test as performed by a certified audiologist.

A full-disclosure statement by the reviewer of said reviewer’s preferences in "how reproduced music SHOULD sound" as well as her/his taste IN genres of music.

And finally, a statement by the reviewer that addresses the nature of relativity and subjectivity.

 

More to discover