Mine too. DIVER, the British magazine often gives the grades of D or F, so to speak. The American SCUBA magazine rarely rates lower than 'good'.
Tests and reviews done by magazine
- Thread starter PtGear
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Mine too. DIVER, the British magazine often gives the grades of D or F, so to speak. The American SCUBA magazine rarely rates lower than 'good'.
ArcticDiver
Contributor
It's know it's easy to want to believe this line of thinking, however it bears pointing out the results of the regulator reviews that Scuba Diving magazine has published over the last several years have all been almost completely and 100% consistent with what you read here from thousands of unbiased reviewers - and thousands of biased reviewers as well!
Similarly their fin reviews always align perfectly with the dichotomous discussions seen here on SB regarding splits vs blades vs paddles.
This year's mask review/roundup could have come directly from any of the hundreds of posts here and on other boards from Atomic Frameless or TUSA Visualator or Oceanic Shadow owners.
So I guess you are suggesting that Scuba Diving magazine rigs their reviews to ensure that the results match up with the "real world experience" of divers from every corner of the globe?
Pretty neat trick
As long as these assertions are presentations of opinion they are fine. But, if the intent is to present an argument that is supported either by statistical method or analytical fact the fail.
The arguments presented here are based on unsupported assertions. You may believe these assertions. But saying something does not make it reality. If you have the facts to support your assertions please present them.
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
pescador775
Contributor
- Messages
- 2,652
- Reaction score
- 13
A few points made by other members:
The results of Scubalab tests often agree with public opinion. I agree. It seems that people here usually end up agreeing closely with published tests or the other way around. This is unlikely to be a coincidence. Even as the tests are being performed, many divers are independently using and evaluating their own gear. Statistically, I would guess that this congruence between the pros and the majority of divers of different experience levels is inevitable. I mean, both groups are capable of recognizing good equipment. However, there are exceptions: there was some guy on SB who claimed that the Caribe fin is "flimsy". Scubalab liked the fin. I like that fin also but agree that a really big, male diver could "overkick" it. However, he will be going faster than he thinks. You see, the average diver has no idea of how fast he is going. That must be measured. Scubalab liked the Avante Tre fin. That fin is fantastic and a bargain. Over kickers, note. A lot of people swear by the jet fin. Scubalab gave a favorable report on the XS jet fin and that helped change my mind although I quit those beasts decades ago. I'm convinced that a heavily laden scuba diver could still make use of the jet. Scubalabs instrumented tests of thrust were the clincher. In 1999, Scubalab reported on the Apollo split fin and rated it excellent. Members of the diving community including Scubaboard's DIR cult, instructors, "old pros" and so forth either ignored the information or contested it hotly. It took five years for the members to begin to turn around, kind of like a battleship in motion. It is this kind of thing which worries me about member reliability. It was if they had to go through the stages of acceptance, denial, anger, etc before a single good word could be heard. As to myself, I bought a pair of Apollos in the summer of 1999 and continue to use them while tank diving. I still remember the first time, it was diving the Gulf stream near Bimini. Air consumption was cut by a third while kicking into the stream full steam ahead.
Another member suggests that Euro magazines are more objective. Actually, they are more opinionated and lack clean, scientific data. However, some results, like the Divernet cold water tests of the MK25 AF, slammed the product, and rightly so. That was confirmed in my mind by several member reports of freezing up of the Scubapro regulator when diving in frigid lakes and rivers (but less often in sea water). I doubt that Scubalab would ever produce such a report. However, since they regularly rate products from "high" (great) to "low' (crappy), I don't think bias is the issue. More likely, they are trying to tone down emotion in their reports, and to avoid nuisance litigation which is a continuing problem in the USA. But, I could have just missed the SL test if it exists. Also, there is the matter of differing methodology; the Euro test of the SP regulator consisted on one guy strapping on the SCUBA and swimming in a cold lake. The regulator froze up. He was annoyed and said so. That is not Scubalab's style but both types of test are useful as is member opinion, potentially.
PS: Scubapro continues to deny that the MK25 is useless in cold water.
The results of Scubalab tests often agree with public opinion. I agree. It seems that people here usually end up agreeing closely with published tests or the other way around. This is unlikely to be a coincidence. Even as the tests are being performed, many divers are independently using and evaluating their own gear. Statistically, I would guess that this congruence between the pros and the majority of divers of different experience levels is inevitable. I mean, both groups are capable of recognizing good equipment. However, there are exceptions: there was some guy on SB who claimed that the Caribe fin is "flimsy". Scubalab liked the fin. I like that fin also but agree that a really big, male diver could "overkick" it. However, he will be going faster than he thinks. You see, the average diver has no idea of how fast he is going. That must be measured. Scubalab liked the Avante Tre fin. That fin is fantastic and a bargain. Over kickers, note. A lot of people swear by the jet fin. Scubalab gave a favorable report on the XS jet fin and that helped change my mind although I quit those beasts decades ago. I'm convinced that a heavily laden scuba diver could still make use of the jet. Scubalabs instrumented tests of thrust were the clincher. In 1999, Scubalab reported on the Apollo split fin and rated it excellent. Members of the diving community including Scubaboard's DIR cult, instructors, "old pros" and so forth either ignored the information or contested it hotly. It took five years for the members to begin to turn around, kind of like a battleship in motion. It is this kind of thing which worries me about member reliability. It was if they had to go through the stages of acceptance, denial, anger, etc before a single good word could be heard. As to myself, I bought a pair of Apollos in the summer of 1999 and continue to use them while tank diving. I still remember the first time, it was diving the Gulf stream near Bimini. Air consumption was cut by a third while kicking into the stream full steam ahead.
Another member suggests that Euro magazines are more objective. Actually, they are more opinionated and lack clean, scientific data. However, some results, like the Divernet cold water tests of the MK25 AF, slammed the product, and rightly so. That was confirmed in my mind by several member reports of freezing up of the Scubapro regulator when diving in frigid lakes and rivers (but less often in sea water). I doubt that Scubalab would ever produce such a report. However, since they regularly rate products from "high" (great) to "low' (crappy), I don't think bias is the issue. More likely, they are trying to tone down emotion in their reports, and to avoid nuisance litigation which is a continuing problem in the USA. But, I could have just missed the SL test if it exists. Also, there is the matter of differing methodology; the Euro test of the SP regulator consisted on one guy strapping on the SCUBA and swimming in a cold lake. The regulator froze up. He was annoyed and said so. That is not Scubalab's style but both types of test are useful as is member opinion, potentially.
PS: Scubapro continues to deny that the MK25 is useless in cold water.
Last edited:
You need to win a prize my friend! You have given me the best advice I have ever recieved or seen on here. I still like asking questions and seeing what others have to say, but yours is right on.
Wayward Son
Contributor
You also should keep in mind that each & every one of the regs tested has been individually tuned by one of the best techs around. they send them all to the guy at my LDS & he works them over, then they get sent back for the tests.
Not to say that the tests are invalid. But they are done to regs tuned as precisely as humanly possible, not regs simply taken out of the box & screwed together.
Not to say that the tests are invalid. But they are done to regs tuned as precisely as humanly possible, not regs simply taken out of the box & screwed together.
Similar threads
