AVSA reviews

[Byrd]

Hi Joel

Thanks for being so candid and I must confess that of all the reviewers at AVSA, I find your reviews to have some merit, although still somewhat too flattering at times. My other gripe with the reviews is the inordinate amount of space wasted in describing the equipment and listing its features, which can at times account for almost three quarters of the entire review. This information can easily be obtained from the manufacturers brochure or online. Spend more time on discussing the merits or otherwise of the sound quality which is what most of us want to read about.

I think i see clues in the reviews. They are always polite and at first glance look flaterring of the products, however if you look closer and do comparisons between them a picture starts to form of what the equipment is really like.

IE take 5o points off the overly flattering reviews and take 50 off the reviews that are just mediochre ... you get the point  ...

[colonel66]

To be grumpy but correct,


Agreed - but do realise that every review also reflects only the reviewer's hearing, and you would probably not be ignorant how subjective hearing can be. Even in Stereophile (with likely a >10x readership and ad-support compared to AVSA) you might have noticed the (listening) reviewer giving rave reviews, while JA's measurements show distinct shortcomings, very audible distortion patterns etc. E.g. it is probably far enough into the past for this not going to implicate a certain product, but the reviewer stated at the end: "Boy, oh boy, can I ever recommend this amp!" - when JA's measurements showed a useless damping factor (about 1,2), varying frequency response, several % distortion, with such a row of high order harmonics that listener fatigue would have had no difficulty to assert itself. (Review of the same product in AVSA was quite more moderate.)

That said; yes, 'independent' assessment including measurements would be desirable, but they probably have neither the time nor the equipment. Do then read between the lines, but also take a review as guidance only. Ask yourself: Would we have been better off without AVSA? (and NO, I am not on their staff)

hi

i agree with sabby - the reviews of AVSA in teh mid 90's or thereabouts were supber - informative, descriptive and more on the sound than the rehash of the specs. if you want manufacturers specs then go to the website. i stopped reading AVSA because of the reviews no longer being informative and stereophile is a great buy and cheaper

ampdog - at least in stereophile one has independent measuresments and the reviewers impression - and they have also reviewed product and said it sucked. also a reviewer has liked a product but JA wont allow it to be in the recommended section because of the poor measurements.

so i miss the old avsa - and i reconginse you cant please all

i am wary of the online reviews - they are more than anyone ad revenue driven

[Andrew]

Hi,

I'm not certain I understand the complaints about the specs. Regular, long-term readers of AVSA would know that prior to the new layout, the specs were mentioned as part of the main text. When we did the re-design, we took into consideration the very complaints that several of you are levelling here, namely that too much of the main review was taken up by the relevant product's specs. It was for that very reason that we then created the 'Vital Stats' panel you now see in the reviews, where we have placed what we believe to be the basic, but most pertinent, stats. We have, therefore, taken that out of the main copy of the review to allow more discussion on the product itself, and its performance. Could you give more clarity on the spec issue, as it relates to the reviews?