Gold Phantom review - Steve Huff

[eniriop]

I like Steves reviews "in general". As a photographer, I'm familiar with his camera gear reviews. They are pretty good to get someone an overall feel for how a product is. But his camera reviews often lack actual test measurements so that's where I look elsewhere for true specifics on how a product performs. His camera reviews seem more like overviews with initial impressions.

I feel the same for this Gold Phantom review. I get suspicious whenever a reviewer quotes a lot of marketing material or shares opinions as facts  without real tests to validate those claims.

Sorry, I know this is going to come off harsh. But since there were no test measurements to help us quantify any of the differences that should be quantifiable (i.e.: midrange fatness mentioned for the silvers), then this strikes me as less a review and more like an overview with initial impressions woven in.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate Steve's time to share his (overwhelmingly positive in this case) overview and initial impressions, but from the standpoint of comparing the golds to the white and silver phantoms I feel he based his expectations from the marketing materials and went from there. As another example...the bass response. We all know the Golds can reach 14hz. But that's not at a volume level of 80. He doesn't even mention that in his review. That would mislead anyone who isn't at all familiar with Phantom specs.

i actually think most people on the forums here would make better reviewers for the Phantoms since we most-likely have spent more time discussing and researching the Phantoms out of critical interest than the more casual listener. But not many of us have the opportunity to simply buy a pair of golds and compare them side by side with the other Phantoms.

Here you are: the frequency response is basically flat from 14 to 14Khz on axis AND off axis:
https://www.computeraudiophile.com/ca/re...view-r654/