Why do you never near anything about Spectral

Jond is correct. Buying equipment is not an option for the magazines since the value drops a LOT once the box is open (except for very popular, in-demand items) and the magazines can't afford to do this as a policy. There's never been a time that I can recall when Spectral wanted its equipment reviewed. Ask THEM why.

Buy the equipment? Are you trying to bring integrity to the review process. How will the editors & their minions get their industry accomodation? They suppliment their income with the resale. The entire process is a farce.

Not only that, but.........

Has anyone ever looked closely at the "reference" systems these guys use? And how often they change?

They run the gamut from dreck to last year's hot items.

The point is that usually they use a mish-mash of gear that usually doesn't meld worth a diddly-squat, and that makes their "reviews" even harder to believe. When you have piece "A" that screams, and piece "B" that is dull, how can they tell what "X" is really like when it replaces one of them in their system.

Keep Porziob's post in mind while you ponder why their systems are always in flux.

Then there is the problem of fudged test data. Another story for another thread.

Goldmund and spectral always fall in this catagory, Don't know why? But for some reason still considered in the top of the class... I have no experiance due to very limited resource's on them so I have no clue.

Porziob and Ar_t are making the most sense here.Proving them wrong would be the job of a master politician or worse...good work men,Bob