On Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:50:14 +0200, "Iain M Churches"
wrote:

Some 'reviews' go further, but many do not. Others now simply call
themselves 'auditions' and use this as a way of washing their hands of
doing any measurements that might tell anyone other than the writer
concerned anything that might help them decide if the amp (or speakers)
might be suitable for anyone other than the person writing the 'audition'.

But doesn't a proper technical evaluation add increased credibility to
a review? and the outlay for such a test is not large. I wonder if there
are some politics also involved here?

As far as I can see the main factor is money. To conduct good tests
needs someone with access to good test equipment, the ability to use
it and preferably who understands what they are doing. This is
expensive. It costs very little to merely express an opinion.

Also the publishers will have done their market research and will
realise that almost none of their readership either read or understand
technical assessments, so comissioning and publishing them involves
spending money for no return.


Alternatively, if the designers of a specific amp go out of their way to
point out their design is good in these areas, it may be tested for them.
But then there will be no real comparison results for many competing
designs...

I wonder why high end amplifier manufacturers do not work more closely
with high end loudspeaker manufacturers, to produce a more homogenous
combination. Or maybe they do?


The forward thinking manufacturers cut out interface problems
altogether by using active speakers. One amp for each driver with
electronic crossovers; reduces amp/driver interface problems,
simplifies crossover design and it should reduce costs. (Decent
analogue crossover components are expensive).

This is now very common in the semi-professional area, and has been
common in the professional arena for many years.

Meridian is the leading advocate of this approach in the field of
Hi-fi.

Bill