Aug 22 issue - omissions and inconsistencies in reviews.

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

A few minor quibbles - I'm enjoying reading the higher-end speaker reviews in this issue, but there are important omissions - to my mind, anyway. Both the ProAc and Spendor models have 'Against' comments to the effect that their dedicated stands ae expensive, but in neither case is the additional cost specified. As the reviewer has that information to hand, why not include it?

Ditto for the Fyne Audio standmounters, where the 'Against' is that careful system matching is required. But the text does not elaborate - if anything it suggests an ease of accommodation as the speakers are sensitive and don't seem to represent a demanding load. Stating why careful matching is needed is surely worthwhile?

There are a few other examples I could quote, but thought this was worth flagging up.

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

Similarly, one of the DACs has an expensive optional remote, though how expensive is anyone's guess....

 

[GSV Ethics Gradient]

It's also interesting that the Yamaha amp gets five stars for features, yet has no digital capabilities, though it does have headphone and phono stage*. The Goldmund further along lacks those two things, but has a full digital suite - it gets fours stars for features. Not consistent marking, I'd suggest.

*Though not one necessarily up to high end duties.