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 I know nothing of your actual experience.  I only know what you have written on these esteemed pages.

Should I be misguided, please share with the community here that in your 15 years of being a reviewer exactly why you provided only one negative review.

And for the sake of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt, define what constitutes a "negative review".

I know nothing of your actual experience.

@noske That’s correct, you don’t.  Yet you still write this presupposing my reviews were influenced to be positive…

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.
 

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.

Should I be misguided, please share with the community here that in your 15 years of being a reviewer exactly why you provided only one negative review.  And for the sake of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt, define what constitutes a "negative review".

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?

 

@soix 

The one product I did write a negative review on didn’t sound good to me 

 Is that enough clarity for you?

Yes.

@soix 

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.

Well that just reduces the interest in any review to that of Bayesian logic and I copy from Wiki.  Dull, boring and handwaving reviews are just so not interesting.  Precise criticism and a skeptical approach is what I prefer.  But then I am not an audiophile.

Bayesian statistics is a theory in the field of statistics based on the Bayesian interpretation of probability where probability expresses a degree of belief in an event. The degree of belief may be based on prior knowledge about the event, such as the results of previous experiments, or on personal beliefs about the event.