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

@millercarbon 

How long can it float? 

About a day until the funeral directors come in to collect.

After that it is the duty of the plumbers.

Room size, flooring (concrete, wooden...), windows (my room the front wal has a very large glass window, back wall is 3 sided floor to ceiling glass windows, walls: concrete, lath, sheet rock wood studs or metal studs...,  treatments, carpeting,window shades, curtains heavy duty or..., dedicated line or not, 

I think it should be mandatory that the reviewer disclose whether he gets the piece of equipment for free, or at a discount that he is reviewing

Pass Labs does not update models as quickly as some manufactures, so assume an upgrade is evident. There is no need to depend on reviews. Way too many self- serving variables to put any trust in a print or video reviewer. Think of reviews as a sales pitch to sell a new product. The previous model is on the second hand market which has very little financial relevance to the reviewer or manufacture. 

Bench test, for all specs against what says in the manual

current, and rms 8, 4, 2 ohm output