In article , Iain M Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

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?

I would say "yes". However with the proviso that the reviewer has to do
relevant tests, and then both understand and explain them reliably and
clearly.

and the outlay for such a test is not large. I wonder if there are some
politics also involved here?

Can only speculate. In part I think it is simply cheaper, quicker, and
easier, to employ reviewers who don't bother much with measurements. Bear
in mind that 20-odd years ago we reached a situation where the kit costs
and measurement costs exceeded the amount a magazine would pay. The
reviewers then also became 'consultants' sic to manufacturers. They would
charge makers to 'test and comment on' a unit before it was released. This
was an extra source of income.

However for many years they then did this without mentioning in reviews
that they'd already tested the item (or its competitors).

The risks are fairly obvious. e.g. Makers started to feel that they *had*
to get such a consultancy check as it would improve your chances of a
decent review.

Another problem, I'm afraid, is that some reviewers have little or no real
understanding of the relevant engineering or science. Thus it is now
routine in audio mags to read statements that are either incorrect in fact,
or contradict may be formally proven and is in the relevant textbooks.

e.g. a review a while ago that stated what kind of CD mechanism a player
had, and how it worked. Since the discription did not fit what I though I
knew, I asked the designer (who I happened to know). He confirmed that what
was in the review was simply wrong, but that there was no point in trying
to get it corrected. They liked the player, so sleeping dogs... :-)

Another problem is that - from what I understand - editors tend to feel
that 'technical' info may put off some readers. The assumption is that
readers don't want to know about bits or impedances, just be told 'A sounds
like it has more bass than B'. Hence we have subjective reviews that tell
you what the reviewer thought, using their room, their taste in music, etc,
but no real info on what anyone else might think.


I have noticed that some amplifier manufacturers like to demonstrate
their amplifier with a particular speaker.

Particular combinations may be optimal for various reasons. Other may
sometimes lead to failures as well as poorer results!

That would be the reason. I am sure also, that the buyer would like to
audition a new amplifier with his own speakers in his own room, or a new
pair of speakers with his own amplifier in his own room. So hifi demo
rooms do not tell the whole story.

Very much so. Alas, the area of speakers and room acoustics tends to not
get the attention it deserves as it hasn't been an opportunity for people
to sell boxes via magazine ads and reviews. :-)


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?

In some cases, yes. However bear in mind that designing and making a *good*
loudspeaker is very very hard. Hence the LS designer is happy to shovel
some problems onto the amp designer. Despite my moans about the poor old
amp designer, I'd say that designing an amp was much easier than designing
a speaker. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html