24.99.198.15
In Reply to: RE: Hello John! posted by thetubeguy1954 on May 22, 2008 at 10:14:01
"I really don't see a great difference between these two issues. IMO in the reviews I spoke of above the manufacturer simply used the reviewer and their review to listen for anything the manufacturer might have missed and then after reading the review the manufacturer used the reviewer's criticisms to put the final touches on their audio component.That said, I understand in principle the difference between a prototype and a finsihed product but from what I've been reading on the internet about these speakers they seem more like pre-production examples of a speaker that might soon be released than just a prototype to me but, what the heck do I know?"
You know, I think the difference might be that - for the manufacturer submitting a production model - the risk is there for a less than complimentary review being published. In the case of this prototype (and it sure seems rough according to JV's assessment!), if it didn't show well at the house ... well, back to the drawing board and no risk of a review being published.While in his care, the speakers in question underwent a crossover change that further improved the "best speaker in the world" - whether or not this was changed due to feedback that JV gave the designer or not remains to be seen. JV insists not.
So - no risk, all reward, and now with the prototype pre-reviewed by JV to be the best in teh world, the designer has a very uncommon advantage: JV's Golden Ear award and eargasmic throbblings can become the very prospectus by which Symposium can generate investment or revenue for production.
It's hardly the same, in my mind, as getting a mediocre published review for an existing product and - in reaction to that review - improving the product. It's one thing to improve existing production, it's quite another to have no product to begin with.
"Your theory is crazy, but it's not crazy enough to be true." - Niels Bohr
Edits: 05/22/08 05/22/08Follow Ups: