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 ozzy

Very interesting topic.

I’ll take it one step further. Specifically, Speakers. But the same could be applied to amplifiers and other electronics.

I would like to see pictures of the actual drivers used compared to the predecessors or other speaker makers in the same price range. That is not just external pictures but the actual drivers themselves showing their magnet motor structure compared to others. For that matter, seeing the crossover inwards would also be helpful.

Some of the upper end loudspeaker's go for close or above $100K. I know the cabinets are expensive, but what makes up all the other costs. R&D? I dunno.

But it would be helpful to know what makes these products better than their predecessors or competitors.

With other electronics, show the circuit boards and the types of materials used. Why is it better from previous designs?

From the pictures that are available, some of the new components look to have very little inside heavy metal chassis.

ozzy