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

Showing 1 response by mitch2

mitch2
3,697 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