The Widescreen Review is not a scientific peer-reviewed journal
Amir‘s test standards are a bit like lap times, except there is more consistency In weather and drivers. Testing balanced outputs at 4V is like testing performance at one race track. You could test at different tracks or see if a car maintains its speed lap after lap. Right or wrong, Amir has chosen 4V in part because there are budget* DACs that achieve e results and it is a reasonable number to pick from the standpoint of enabling flexibility across amps. 2V is nominal for unbalanced CD players.
There are those who say 4V is unnecessary because most amplifiers have Input sensitivity where you can calibrate to THX reference home theater sound without getting to 4V. This is like saying that we should test fuel economy on a regular commute rather than a racetrack.
Everyone is accurate because it represents different tests. It’s not peer review to determine which race track is the most accurate race track for testing cars. It’s just that two reviewers or testers are choosing different test tracks. Easier to compare within a reviewer’s protocol than between.
The problem arises in the gap between advertising and reality. The problem also relies in design choices. Audio manufacturers are claiming a certain top speed, perhaps well above what you can safely drive (analogy of audible difference). But if a company is going to advertise a top speed, you would expect the car to come close, even if it’s only under the right conditions with the wind in the right direction. Amir has found that discrepancies can be dramatic. There are also interesting findings such as showing how good something like a Denon AVR-X3600H can get.
Amir hated my JBL 4319. I think it’s one of my best speakers and I am glad I got it. But the measurements and science are still fully compatible with both opinions. Science doesn’t lie. Interpretation of results is important.
So far, we have seen “embellishments” from advertised specs and actual performance.
