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 
jonwolfpell
342 posts
 

snapsc- fully agreed & of course what ancillary equipment was used & what other equipment was tried w/ the reviewed piece.  Stereophile is good w/ this, Absolute Sound often not. 

curiousjim's avatar
curiousjim
4,126 posts
 

Reviewers have opinions just like you or I do. I’m sure nobody agrees with everyone. 

curiousjim's avatar
curiousjim
4,126 posts
 

@millercarbon 

How long can it float? What do you mean? In mercury? Seawater? Molten lava? 

Specifications are technical. Where's Amir when you need him?

😆😆😆

 

millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 

The Stereophile comment is a good one. One of the main benefits of being able to post your system here is anyone who wonders what kind of a listener you are can go and see for themselves. If you want to make one thing mandatory for reviewers, this might be it. Let them write and say whatever they want. Long as we can look and see what was what when they formed their impressions. It's the audiophile version of the Rosetta Stone

More to discover