In most cases, reviewers will only do comparisons of products previously reviewed (or under current review) by the magazine. I'm sure the author is aware of the similarities between the two units, but if he, or another writer with the mag did not receive a 950 for an "official" review, I don't see how he could make any sort of comparison. I don't find his report to be a disservice to the readers at all. He received the Atlantic Technology P-2000 (NOT a 950) and was asked to review it-- which he did. Simple as that. If he is "issued" a 950, and is asked to review it-**maybe** at that time, he might make some comments on the similarity between the two products. Who knows?

Although he did not receive the 950 for an "official" review, he could have written the 950 is a clone from a sister company to Atlantic Technology, and that it costs much much less.


[This message has been edited by Will (edited January 17, 2003).]

I just thought of something, Will... you could always write a letter to the Editor with an explanation of what you feel was not fairly reported on in the article! Maybe they'll publish it.

The reviewer probably has good reasons not to discuss the relationship between the Atlantic Technology P2000 he reviewed, and the Outlaw 950.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited January 17, 2003).]

it's a common practice not to cite "clones" in a/v journalism. i used to be so bug by it but understand it now since working for a manufacturing company.

i think most of us would be surpised that several a/v companies have agreements to re-badge each other's products. even if most of them use produce different products, their contract manufacturers might share common BOMs (bill of materials).

some fairly well known clones and components sharing products are:

pioneer 503cmx = pionner pro1000hd = hitachi CMP-5000WXU plasma displays

hughes = toshiba = philips = mitsubishi HD STBs

zenith sat520 = sony hd200 HD STBs

fujitsu plasma using the panasonic plasma glass

yet you rarely see any a/v journalist outright say a product is a replica of another product. i think it's professional courtesy to mfg and a bit of an unwritten rule not to mention clones. while mainstream consumer magazines might not mention this practice, trade magazines (industry specific) can be much more reavealling about this type of stuff.

if you look out there, there are really not many manufacturers who have the resources to produce a product from the ground up. many times they source it a design house then subcontract it out to contract mfg. or even competing company -- in that process they make business deals to share product or parts. this is not just in the a/v industry, it is widely practiced in the ce, auto, computer, and other industries.

the other member here is correct, the a/v journalist is not intentionally doing readers a disservice. his only task is merely review the product at hand. it is for the educated consumer and industry insider to know the difference.

besides, Home Theater is only a smidgin better than Sound & Vision (pure fluff). Guide to Home Theater will give you so much more detail and educated reviews

[This message has been edited by BodegaBay (edited January 18, 2003).]

[This message has been edited by BodegaBay (edited January 18, 2003).]

Sound & Vision has evolved a tiny bit in the last few years. At least now they _dare_ to state the downsides of some of the things they review.

That wasn't the impression I got when they decided not to perform their typical power measurements of the Sony DA4ES last month, at Sony's suggestion.

I said _some_ of the equipment

BOM = bill of materials, yes?