Pioneer SC-LX81 Review changed???

[admin_exported]

HI. First post here so I'm sorry that it's a slightly negative one...but here's what's on my mind...

I'm planning on getting an SC-LX81 (which What HiFi chose as "Best multichannel receiver £1000-£2000" 2008) this summer and have been flipping between the 3 pro reviews that I know of for inspiration (What HiFi's being the first that I found).

About a week ago I noticed that the 5 star, everything "FOR" and nothing "AGAINST" review (which also praised the 81 as being the absolute best amp in its price range bar none...and beyond), was gone (kept getting error 404...can't find page) and then replaced by a somewhat confusing 4 star review, saying that that it suddenly "Lacks the depth and detail of class leader" and the following confusing run of statements:

"Superbly integrated sound
Both the tonal range and surround field are superbly integrated, so your ear is never distracted by bright treble, over-exuberant bass or a misplaced effect, even in the demanding robot battles on the Transformers Blu-ray."

I personally can't see anything negative what so ever in the previous statement BUT it is followed up by this:

"That’s not to say that the ’LX81 is inaccurate." (I'd say not judging by what the reviewer just said) "Voices remain clear during frantic action scenes and individual bullets whizz right over your head; it’s just that these don’t detract from the surround presentation as a whole."

And then finishes off with:

"Switch to some stereo music and these sonic traits remain.

The soundstage is wide and extremely well-integrated, with vocals and instruments being clear and defined without ever drawing the ear away from the other elements – which is absolutely key at this level.

As gifted as the Pioneer is, though, it has a slight problem in the shape of its new Sony STR-DA5400ES rival, which has even more attack, depth and detail."

This review makes no sense to me. Everything still seems positive except for the fact that the reviewer seems to feel that Sony has come out with something better (the reviews of which I've been able to dig up say that it's extremely difficult to dial in and doesn't sound that impressive until you do...).

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against a less than flattering review for something I'm about to buy. And I've read enough overwhelmingly positive reviews of the SC-LX81 by users and professionals (What HiFi's original review included) to know that it is the receiver for me. BUT, what is REALLY irritating to me is that it seems utterly unprofessional to remove a star and replace a whole review with a new one with no explanation (Links that I posted on a Danish forum with the old review last year, now lead to the new one). If I didn't know any better I'd think that you were hacked or paid off by Sony!

I've been very happy with What HiFis website but this really threw me for a loop!

 

[Andrew Everard]

Group test in the new June issue saw the Sony move ahead of the Pioneer, and its class rivals, simple as that.

And don't start those old 'if I didn't know better' insinuations, or we'll be here all night...

 

[Anonymous]

In cases like this were a product is re-reviewed as part of a group test would it be possible to annotate the new review. A note to the effect of the comment you made Andrew would have put the OP's mind at rest. Particularly when a product drops in status, still good, but bettered by a new one.

How common is it to review a product for a second or third time? i guess with some popular items like class leading speakers it must happen a lot.

thanks

Gavin

 

[Andrew Everard]

Point taken, but the current system only allows us to run a single review for each product, and that's going to be the most recent one.

 

[Anonymous]

fair enough Andrew

I guess it is something to add to the ever growing feature request list. (I know just how long they can get)

cheers

Gavin

 

[Anonymous]

I must admit that I also find the removal of stars very confusing and the changing of reviews then to back this up.

I feel that what was a 5 star product should remain (with it's original review) and new products then reviewed on their own strengths. Yes, have group tests and include extra comments for the new against the old, but, leave the original review intact - other wise it just seems daft.

Other peoples comments would be appreciated and if the balance is in favour of not changing 'stars' then maybe the What HiFi team could listen and take on board their readers thoughts.

Regards,

 

[jase fox]

I must admit that when stars drop from 5 to 4 its always irritated me somewhat.

If i'd of gone out & bought the Pioneer SC-LX81 say a month ago based on its original 5 star review got home rigged it all up etc then 3wks later i read this months WHSV mag now saying the sonys better with a star deducted id be gutted as i'd be thinking i could of got the Sony?

So i think its vital that the "original" reviews should still stand however, if a star must go then i can deal with that, but like someone has already said on here, i dont like the reviews to change in order to justify the loss of a star. I would rather the review stick to the original one but just say that we prefer the Sony etc

 

[Andrew Everard]

jase fox:I would rather the review stick to the original one but just say that we prefer the Sony etc

But it's important that we keep the reviews in the context of the market, and so if a price-rival appears offering more for the same money, of course the star ratings are going to change.

 

[Andy Clough]

Two points. First, when newer and better products enter the market, it's entirely possible that a previously five-star rated product may drop a star or two as the new one is superior. Nothing illogical or unprofessional in that.

Secondly, the reviews on the website are published individually, but if you want to get the full picture and understand the context of a Group Test and how the products in that test relate to each other, then you'll need to buy the magazine.

The review of the new Sony STR-DA5400ES will be posted online tomorrow, so perhaps once that review is published on the site the results will make more sense.

 

[Andrew Everard]

What he said...

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

If the class leading product is beaten by a new rival (whatever that may be) then the original awarding of stars must also be adjusted. It would not just be the old class leader that will have changed - it should be all the way down the class.

If stars remained unchanged, a 5 star item from 3 or 4 years ago would still show up as a 5 star product. In reality it may only be a three star product compared to today's leaders.

Home cinema/hi-fi items are evolutionary and this has to be reflected in the ratings - it then follows that as things evolve, so things older will become left behind. In the same way as the Escort RS2000 was great in it's day but it's poor by today's standards.

Personally I think the mag/staff have it right.

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[Andy Clough]

Couldn't have put it better myself Cofnchtr! In this instance, three previously reviewed products - the Pioneer, Rotel and Yamaha - all lost a star because a new model entered the market and set an even higher benchmark. Simple as that really.

What it doesn't mean is that the three exisitng products have suddenly become bad overnight. Far from it, they're all still extremely good. Just no longer the best in class.

 

[Clare Newsome]

it's also worth pointing out that AV receivers now have a 12-18 month lifecycle - the Pioneer held onto its Award-winning/class-leading status for more than 7 months, which is incredibly impressive in such a fast-changing, ,competitive market (we've seen Award winners in other product categories beaten sooner, thanks to new releases).

It's still a damn fine receiver that any owner can be proud to have - it's just that we now think there's something even better. And with new receivers in this price point due before our 2009 Awards in October, who knows what will be class-leader then - maybe even the 2009 Pioneer!

We don't set this pace of change - the manufactuers do that! - but we have to reflect it, and review as we find.

Rest assured at this price point that if you've a decent receiver from 2007 onwards- think the Onkyo 875 etc - then you're well equipped to be enjoying a fantastic home cinema experience for some time to come: these latest models are mere refinements, with extra features on top, as well as improved (but not step-change) performance.

However, if you're replacing an older, non-HD receiver or upgrading from a budget price-point - or indeed making your first serious foray into home cinema - then we guess you'd like to know what we think is the very best you can buy today.

 

[Anonymous]

Still do not agree with this way of thinking -

A 5 star product in, lets say, Oct 2008 must still be a 5 star product with the same review (surely), especially if it is a product of the year !

Of course new products may come along and surpass it but, it can't (shouldn't) take away a rating / review.

If I read a review of a product which was released in 2008 then I would read it as just that - 2008.

So long as people take ratings and reviews as time sensitive then all is good (IMHO)

Any more thoughts anyone ?

 

[Clare Newsome]

Every one of our reviews is conducted on a comparative, performance-per-pound basis. If we feel a product is no longer the best-value in its class - to the extent that a newer/cheaper notably outperforms it - then it's hard for it to hang onto its five-star status.

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting thread.

Given that there is a general increase in prices of products such as AV Receivers is it possible for a product that previously only merited a 4 star Revue to gain a star because with other price movements it becomes the best value in class.

From what you are saying this ought to be possible as the system must surely work both ways.

 

[Cofnchtr]

Hi,

If something only has 4 stars, then something else must have beaten it to the 5 star podium.

Can't see how the 4 star product could then achieve 5 if it was originally beaten?

Cheers,

Cofnchtr.

 

[Anonymous]

But the 5 star products may be discontinued and replaced with more expensive or inferior products (given the exchange rates this is quite possible) which may leave a 4 star product as the best value in class.

 

[pioneer7]

Out of interst if say the pioneer was to drop in price say £200/£300 would this then hold its 5-star rating based on value for money, and as the reviews are based on price as well surely the pioneer would hold 5-stars.

Just a thought thats all.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:Point taken, but the current system only allows us to run a single review for each product, and that's going to be the most recent one.

I personally think that it is entirely correct to amend ratings to keep them current taking account of new products.

I think I have read previous reviews where this change in grading has been explained in the text of the article. If this was adopted as standard procedure and for example the change of grading was always highlighted and briefly explained at the end of the review, this might be a reasonable compromise to the opposing viewpoints listed in the discussion and ensure that the change of grading was immediately obvious.

 

[bigboss]

Interesting thread. I can't remember the last time when almost all the products in the class lose a star to accommodate a new player with 5 stars. It's probably just a coincidence that the 5-star product is a Sony.

 

[Boca]

It makes sense, I got the Pioneer in the last month and I still think it is great but I have to agree if a company comes out with a better sounding product at a lower price you have to adjust the ratings for that category.

Example : If Pioneer decided to drop the price of the SC-LX81 to £900 then it would cause the rest of the pack to drop star status..same as if the SC-LX90 - SUSANO were to drop to £1500 it would make the Sony drop star status.

The problem that most are having is:

1) their should be a tag as this was a class leader for X amout of time.

2)you would have to drop the star ratings of the rest of the competition in the cattagory range? eg pioneers alternative is still set to a 4 star but it was a 4 star when the pioneer was a 5 star shouldn't marantz 8002 and onkyo 876 be 3 stars now. see link(http://whathifi.com/Review/Pioneer-SC-LX81/.

 

[Anonymous]

Yes, the Onkyo 906 should probably be 3 stars now because it was rated 4 stars when the Pioneer and Yamaha were rated 5 stars. The problem is that the Onkyo was not retested in the latest test which is why its rating hasn't changed. Then again, it could maybe still be a 4 star product, but it's probably at the lower end of 4 stars versus the Pioneer/Yamaha.

I think all you can use the reviews for is to identify the "Best" piece of equipment in that category which should be rated at 5 stars. All other products which are rated at 4 stars are still excellent products and the ratings don't really rank the products in any particular order.

 

[TKratz]

Also interesting that the Onkyo 875 still has 5 stars, probably because it hasn't been included in any recent group tests. without the proper knowledge you might think that it is actually better than the 4 star 876, which I guess is not the case...

 

[ukgthor]

Spare a thought for people like me, I ordered the SC-LX81 four months ago when it had a five star status, I've still yet to receive it and now it has a four star status. Who knows, I might get my hands on it finally before it becomes two stars !

Andrew/Clare/Andy have you had any news from Pioneer in regard to supply issues of their Amps ?.