Guido,
I have no qualms with your reviewing guidelines regarding technical information or insistence on manufacturers' corroborating any information before inclusion. I've read several of your reviews and consider them all very well written, professional, informative, well articulated and overall very enjoyable to read.
My main point was that I would think PFO is in a precarious position when deciding what products to assign for review. I want to preface my following comments by stating I have very little knowledge of the process editors use when deciding what products they choose to review and any constraints they encounter or perceive when doing so. My comments are based only on reason, logic and common sense and without any specific knowledge or insight from any source.
From this perspective, I was contemplating why there is such a consistent lack of reviews comparing the performance of various class D amps against each other. For an example, let's say an editor is considering a larger scale review comparing, as chance would have it, the following amps:
MerrillAudio Veritas mono-blocks using Hypex nc1200 power conversion modules.
D-Sonic M31500M mono-blocks using the discontinued Abletec ALC-1000 power conversion modules.
James Romeyn assembled stereo amp using a pair of the Hypex nc400 power conversion modules and nc1200 smps.
Aluminati Sound X-2 assembled stereo amp using a single Pascal SPRO-2 power conversion module
Technical information on all power conversion modules would be aupplied by Hypex, Abletec and Pascal.
Amp features and technical information would be supplied by Merrill Audio, D-Sonic, James Romeyn and Aluminati Sound.
Given the above, my thoughts are:
If either Merrill or D-Sonic advertised with the editor's print or online publication, he may not assign such a review if he thought there was a strong possibility of either of the assembled amps from James Romeyn or Aluminati Sound outperforming the Merrill or D-Sonic amps. Whether either OEM amp company would actually cease their advertising with a publication due to being bested by an upstart assembled amp is debatable and probably irrelevant. Even the editor's perception that this could ensue may be enough to cause him to nix the whole review.
In no way do I think PFO is unique in this regard; the other online and printed audio magazines may also avoid these types of reviews for the same reasons. Ultimately, however, the only indication of my theory being correct is the complete lack of this type of comparative review existing on any online audio site or in any printed audio medium I know of.
I may be all wet with my thoughts and just frustrated with my lack of success finding comparative information online about these various power conversion modules. I am just very curious why there is such a lack of information on this very obvious subject for a thorough review. The only information I've discovered is anecdotal and usually on audio forums, such as this one, from individuals who have no financial incentives, or disincentives, causing them not to respond or not to report honestly.
Just my 2 cents,
Tim
I have no qualms with your reviewing guidelines regarding technical information or insistence on manufacturers' corroborating any information before inclusion. I've read several of your reviews and consider them all very well written, professional, informative, well articulated and overall very enjoyable to read.
My main point was that I would think PFO is in a precarious position when deciding what products to assign for review. I want to preface my following comments by stating I have very little knowledge of the process editors use when deciding what products they choose to review and any constraints they encounter or perceive when doing so. My comments are based only on reason, logic and common sense and without any specific knowledge or insight from any source.
From this perspective, I was contemplating why there is such a consistent lack of reviews comparing the performance of various class D amps against each other. For an example, let's say an editor is considering a larger scale review comparing, as chance would have it, the following amps:
MerrillAudio Veritas mono-blocks using Hypex nc1200 power conversion modules.
D-Sonic M31500M mono-blocks using the discontinued Abletec ALC-1000 power conversion modules.
James Romeyn assembled stereo amp using a pair of the Hypex nc400 power conversion modules and nc1200 smps.
Aluminati Sound X-2 assembled stereo amp using a single Pascal SPRO-2 power conversion module
Technical information on all power conversion modules would be aupplied by Hypex, Abletec and Pascal.
Amp features and technical information would be supplied by Merrill Audio, D-Sonic, James Romeyn and Aluminati Sound.
Given the above, my thoughts are:
If either Merrill or D-Sonic advertised with the editor's print or online publication, he may not assign such a review if he thought there was a strong possibility of either of the assembled amps from James Romeyn or Aluminati Sound outperforming the Merrill or D-Sonic amps. Whether either OEM amp company would actually cease their advertising with a publication due to being bested by an upstart assembled amp is debatable and probably irrelevant. Even the editor's perception that this could ensue may be enough to cause him to nix the whole review.
In no way do I think PFO is unique in this regard; the other online and printed audio magazines may also avoid these types of reviews for the same reasons. Ultimately, however, the only indication of my theory being correct is the complete lack of this type of comparative review existing on any online audio site or in any printed audio medium I know of.
I may be all wet with my thoughts and just frustrated with my lack of success finding comparative information online about these various power conversion modules. I am just very curious why there is such a lack of information on this very obvious subject for a thorough review. The only information I've discovered is anecdotal and usually on audio forums, such as this one, from individuals who have no financial incentives, or disincentives, causing them not to respond or not to report honestly.
Just my 2 cents,
Tim