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-
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. |
@soix I know nothing of your actual experience. I only know what you have written on these esteemed pages. And for the sake of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt, define what constitutes a "negative review". |
@noske That’s correct, you don’t. Yet you still write this presupposing my reviews were influenced to be positive…
As I’ve said before, at no time as a reviewer was I ever influenced to write anything in any way other than what I heard. If I was I would no longer write for that publication. Period.
Again, and as I’ve stated before, 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. Either way, it’s very, very rare a reviewer receives a components that just sounds “bad.” The one product I did write a negative review on didn’t sound good to me and I wrote it up as such, and had I gotten another product that disappointed I would’ve had no problem writing another negative review. That said, no product is perfect, which is why I always fully disclosed areas where I thought a review component was better or worse relative to a competitive product. Is that enough clarity for you?
|
