When is a broken panther justified?

[Mnyb]

I like them for the fun and don’t take them to seriously

The headless one is the most useful as it indicates a useless product.

Take the totalDAC ( a really bad and expensive DAC reviewed a while ago ):

If you don’t have DAC don’t buy it . If you have one , what ever you have now is probably better , so don’t buy it.

 

[mansr]

The headless and piggy-bank panthers both suggest there might be fun reading ahead.

 

[sergeauckland]

that is life in business. The goalposts are always moving. What was impressive a few years ago is now table stakes for customers. It’s not the panthers moving the goalposts. They are reflecting a judgment on whether or not we should spend out money on the item for its given purpose or get something else for the same money.

Whilst I understand and accept that the Panther is a crude cypher for the conclusions of a detailed test report, it nevertheless is the 'headline' for the report.

It's not the Panther I have any issue with, it's the conclusion that just because something can be so much better technically, the one being considered is somehow faulty/sub standard/useless, whereas it may be fine, just not as good as it might be.

I have two examples of this, the Amazon basic amplifier and the Behringer A500 amplifier. Neither are anywhere near SOTA, neither are anywhere near as competent technically as others, but equally, both are perfectly usable, likely to be transparent in normal use, and so are perfectly sound choices where the performance is deemed adequate. I have no need for anything better than adequate, anything more than adequate is an unnecessary indulgence, although my definition of 'adequate' may be different to others'. If it's transparent under the conditions of use to which I will put the item, then what need is there for anything 'better', and certainly more expensive? I have no use for 'nice things', only what works. Others of course may have different criteria for 'adequacy' Some seem only to want 'The Best' regardless of whether it works any better, I'm not one of those.

S.

 

[Jimbob54]

Whilst I understand and accept that the Panther is a crude cypher for the conclusions of a detailed test report, it nevertheless is the 'headline' for the report.

It's not the Panther I have any issue with, it's the conclusion that just because something can be so much better technically, the one being considered is somehow faulty/sub standard/useless, whereas it may be fine, just not as good as it might be.

I have two examples of this, the Amazon basic amplifier and the Behringer A500 amplifier. Neither are anywhere near SOTA, neither are anywhere near as competent technically as others, but equally, both are perfectly usable, likely to be transparent in normal use, and so are perfectly sound choices where the performance is deemed adequate. I have no need for anything better than adequate, anything more than adequate is an unnecessary indulgence, although my definition of 'adequate' may be different to others'. If it's transparent under the conditions of use to which I will put the item, then what need is there for anything 'better', and certainly more expensive? I have no use for 'nice things', only what works. Others of course may have different criteria for 'adequacy' Some seem only to want 'The Best' regardless of whether it works any better, I'm not one of those.

S.

But, taking the Amazon amp, isnt the message from the panther for this product, "dont go near it, there is far better in its price range" . By your thinking, it joins the ranks of coy , on his front panther reviews and I have to read all of them to pick the bones out?

Of course, it doesnt really matter , because if looking at the review database to inform a purchase, you are looking for price and whether it gets a recommendation and you cant even see the panther rating.

 

[Helicopter]

Headless panther means it's a stupid decision to buy that product instead of others like it that does the same job, only better.

If there's a headless panther I usually don't click on the review, or I click to see how bad it is for entertainment purposes.

In this time and age there's no excuse to produce electronic equipment worthy of a headless panther.

This is my take too.

I still like my Focal Clear.

Headphones are tricky because they are hard to characterize completely (only 85%) with measurements, and because the $9 Sonys are there, crushing the majority of headphones at any price. This means, that you don't have to account for price much with headphones. You've got this little gem, one of the cheapest things Amir has reviewed, that is a better choice than most headphones, even without considering budget.

DACs headphone amps, and chip amps are a little like this too, with some great performance by $100; but $9 isn't $100.

 

[rdenney]

I hope that Behringer amp is better that the Behringer mixing board I have, which developed a -40dB FS 60-cycle hum after a year. It’s too cheap to repair and just ends up in the landfill.

The problem with stuff that measures much worse than the competition at a given price is that it shows the price-point thinking was the dominant design strategy instead of a constraint. They were thinking “can we make something adequate that’s cheap” instead of “how good can we make this product at this price point”. Where else might that thinking have dominated decisions in the product?

If they are careful about measured performance, then maybe they are careful about other things. (Maybe not.) If they are not careful about measured performance, however, particularly if they don’t even attain their own specs, then hope about other things recedes.

Rick “tired of buying crap” Denney

 

[Rottmannash]

Could be a lot worse. Have seen how many wolf's and anime girls Wolf used in his lastest audiogd review?
I like the pathers it gives a quick glimpse into Amir's impression.

Agreed-I typically have no clue how he feels about a product viewing his menagerie of animals clustered around and atop the product. Also the translation often leaves me less than informed.

 

[Rottmannash]

Whilst I understand and accept that the Panther is a crude cypher for the conclusions of a detailed test report, it nevertheless is the 'headline' for the report.

It's not the Panther I have any issue with, it's the conclusion that just because something can be so much better technically, the one being considered is somehow faulty/sub standard/useless, whereas it may be fine, just not as good as it might be.

I have two examples of this, the Amazon basic amplifier and the Behringer A500 amplifier. Neither are anywhere near SOTA, neither are anywhere near as competent technically as others, but equally, both are perfectly usable, likely to be transparent in normal use, and so are perfectly sound choices where the performance is deemed adequate. I have no need for anything better than adequate, anything more than adequate is an unnecessary indulgence, although my definition of 'adequate' may be different to others'. If it's transparent under the conditions of use to which I will put the item, then what need is there for anything 'better', and certainly more expensive? I have no use for 'nice things', only what works. Others of course may have different criteria for 'adequacy' Some seem only to want 'The Best' regardless of whether it works any better, I'm not one of those.

S.

I agree to a point-many only want adequate but many more want excellent and most everyone wants great performance for little money. The issue is refining this panther-as-trophy-or-not method of signaling value or not. Someone needs to develop either an adjunct to the panther or replace with something more meaningful-perhaps a score for meeting specs, a score for bang for buck, a score for SOTA engineering, and a score for SOTA measurements.

 

[Jimbob54]

Agreed-I typically have no clue how he feels about a product viewing his menagerie of animals clustered around and atop the product. Also the translation often leaves me less than informed.

I suspect it is a bit of an in joke. The point being, look at the measurements. I dont think he views himself as a reviewer. Though he does call out overpriced junk when he sees (measures ) it.

 

[Katji]

Leave the pink panthers alone.

 

[Jimbob54]

Leave the pink panthers alone.

What does "holding sick in " panther represent?

 

[Robin L]

I'd say the headless panther is justified if Amir has determined it's not worth the money or not worth bothering with at all. The Panther is a subjective indicator of our host's pleasure or displeasure with a given audio device. I don't think said panther should be restricted to numerical indications of performance.

I also think we need to hear more about the day to day activities of the panthers, Amir has been slipping in that regard. Who will stand up for the panthers,? Their griefs and cares?

 

[Katji]

It means nauseated by comments.


...I couldn't find one that was running away before they start measuring his dick.

 

[Rottmannash]

What does "holding sick in " panther represent?

....may be speak no evil panther? or i've just farted and am embarrassed panther?

 

[Aerith Gainsborough]

I like the panthers.
I think the headless panther should be reserved for products that fail to live up to advertised specs in a significant manner, have clearly broken designs or audible concerns regarding transparency.

AFAIK that is how they are used currently.

 

[Wes]

how about a panther with a veil?

 

[Katji]

how about a panther with a veil?

https://www.google.com/search?q=vei...hUKEwiJ6IeJ957vAhUKmRoKHddECMwQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA

Oh well.

 

[Vasr]

Whether the pink panther is useful or not depends on whether you view these reviews as spectator sport or a buying guide. It is fine for the former but too many false negatives to be reliable for the latter.

So, when I see people commenting that they would not look at the review of a device with a decapitated partner as in this thread, it highlights the downside of this rating. Reality is that the overall grade always colors one's perception of the objective data.

Primarily because it doesn't have enough precision to distinguish anything in-between "this unit will not work right for anybody" to "this will work very well unless you happened to be in this small set of people that pair it with this kind of equipment and use it with these settings" to "this will work fine for most except that there are even better performing ones even though no one will notice the difference except in price". The latter is also subject to the order in which the units are measured which gives false positives even in that criterion because something was measured first before another.

The above crudity is fine for a spectator sport or perhaps for a buying guide for a simple device like a DAC or a pure amp that has one primary function. Anything more complex than that which usually involves a compromise of features (very strong in some, weaker in some) isn't served by this rating and in many instance even by measurements since it overweights the assessment of one say SINAD across multiple devices of varying features and capabilities.

But it is what it is and it is better than nothing.

My suggestion would be for the group as a whole when discussing these things to not encourage blank assertions of the type that isn't good because it has a decapitated panther or that one would not consider it because of such. That just normalizes the downsides noted above as a dis-service to potential buyers and new readers.

 

[mdsimon2]

Whether the pink panther is useful or not depends on whether you view these reviews as spectator sport or a buying guide. It is fine for the former but too many false negatives to be reliable for the latter.

100% agree with this.

Michael

 

[Wes]

ok, post examples of decent sounding and useful product that got a broken panther