09-Feb-2016, 13:08
(This post was last modified: 09-Feb-2016, 13:08 by deviousalet.)
I find it useful to have comparisons both within and outside of a price bracket. Constraining reviews to a tiny price bracket is just a way of pleasing advertisers who can then compete in a "price point" without fear of realistic comparisons outside an artificial constraint.
Some people are shopping within a tight price range while others are not, and a review should serve both audiences. Also, prices change but the comparative sound remains. So comparing a $5k system is fine until it becomes $2k used or a $15k speaker is $5k used and suddenly the same money as the new $5k system.
It is useful to write a few more words, such as "Furthermore, the only speakers I’ve heard that can equal or exceed the Silver Phantoms’ imaging and soundstaging talents are made by companies like Magico and Vivid Audio -- and their lowest-priced models cost far more than Devialet’s overachieving little wonders." or more obliquely, "Nor does the Silver Phantom offer reference-level transparency and resolution; it’s merely very, very good." The more precise and direct those comparisons are the more useful the review is, if only for comparison to the state of the art. This is why many reviewers have a reference system and measure everything against that, and why that's useful.
In the case of the Phantom such comparisons are even more valid since Devialet themselves directly compares the Phantom to far more expensive systems so making comparisons between the Phantom and the state of the art is just fact-checking Devialet's claims. Devialet said that the Phantom are "the best sound in the world—1,000 times superior to current systems", so every system is a fair comparison.
Some people are shopping within a tight price range while others are not, and a review should serve both audiences. Also, prices change but the comparative sound remains. So comparing a $5k system is fine until it becomes $2k used or a $15k speaker is $5k used and suddenly the same money as the new $5k system.
It is useful to write a few more words, such as "Furthermore, the only speakers I’ve heard that can equal or exceed the Silver Phantoms’ imaging and soundstaging talents are made by companies like Magico and Vivid Audio -- and their lowest-priced models cost far more than Devialet’s overachieving little wonders." or more obliquely, "Nor does the Silver Phantom offer reference-level transparency and resolution; it’s merely very, very good." The more precise and direct those comparisons are the more useful the review is, if only for comparison to the state of the art. This is why many reviewers have a reference system and measure everything against that, and why that's useful.
In the case of the Phantom such comparisons are even more valid since Devialet themselves directly compares the Phantom to far more expensive systems so making comparisons between the Phantom and the state of the art is just fact-checking Devialet's claims. Devialet said that the Phantom are "the best sound in the world—1,000 times superior to current systems", so every system is a fair comparison.
