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
soix,

You may have misunderstood me. The issue I have is with publications who don’t pay what I would consider a proper rate for reviews, and instead take advantage of the willingness of reviewers to do the work for a low pay scale with some promise of discounts on gear. If the writers agree to do so, it is their choice. I still think that if they are actually trying to earn a living they may be getting taken advantage of.

I’ll use an analogy, from my former profession—editorial photography. Publications (some/too many) offer assignments with low pay by telling the photog they’ll be getting great "exposure" and building their portfolios. That doesn’t pay the bills. I can’t eat photo credits. Sadly, many photographers starting out have taken the bait, therefore making it harder for established photogs to command/demand higher rates (even though they were paid it at one point). It’s a race to the bottom, with some photogs undercutting others and ultimately, themselves.

I don’t know how it all works in the audio reviewing business. In sports photography, there are more than a few weekend warriors, doctors or the like, who can afford $50,000 in camera gear and will give their photos away for free in exchange for the sideline photo credential. It’s done real harm to pros trying to make a living. Maybe there are rich trustafarians or well-heeled people doing the same in audio, enjoying getting a byline and a discount on gear. You might know.

Cheers

You may have misunderstood me. The issue I have is with publications who don’t pay what I would consider a proper rate for reviews, and instead take advantage of the willingness of reviewers to do the work for a low pay scale with some promise of discounts on gear. If the writers agree to do so, it is their choice.

@patrickdowns You are correct. Unless you write for the glossy mags you’re not gonna make money writing reviews. I did it because I love audio gear and writing, and the prospect of getting to listen to a lot of equipment in my room/system along with getting dealer pricing was something that was very attractive to me. But, after a while I got tired of humping equipment in and out of my system and spending tons of hours reviewing equipment to make someone else rich so I stopped but still very glad I did it. AFAIK the audio review industry doesn’t have any wealthy warriors undermining professional reviewers who do it as a career as in sports photography, but that totally sucks.

@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.