Tests and reviews done by magazine

[PtGear]

Hi all,

I'm reading a regulator test from the July issue of a magazine. There are some regulators scoring perfect for the work of breathing tests e.g. Aeris Ion AT 400 DVT, Aqua Lung Legend Glacia ACD (I like the idea of the mouth piece with a lip shield, esp after some cold water divings), Hollis 212 DC1, Sherwood Scuba SR1. Some other models also have very good reviews e.g. Aqua Lung Mikron, Hollis 212 DC2. Then a very good review but not perfect for ScubaPro Mk25/17 G250V.

My question is, do you guys have any opinion about those regulators and/or the review? Do you care about these kinds of reviews?

Thanks!

Pt

 

[deco_martini]

The article is "17 new regulators". The regulators are basically just tested for airflow. Its a fairly simplistic review that compares tech, vacation, and general purpose regulators just based on their airflow.

 

[pescador775]

I don't subscribe so can't comment on the July issue. However, past reviews including the "mother of all regulator reviews" had some good things to say about the MK25/G250HP. It scored near the top in the in-water evaluation, a subjective test of just how good is the regulator from the diver's perspective. I might add that the competition was well represented with Atomic Aquatics, Apeks, etc.

My feeling is that the G250HP is a practical regulator, large enough to allow prominent controls and control bubble flow. It's "breathing" is absolutely smooth. I believe the size of the case allows use of a larger diaphragm providing more force multiplication and making fine tuning more reliable.

A tremendous amount of tedious work goes into such tests. The results can show differences, maybe important differences, but "work of breathing" tests usually produce only tiny disparities between brands and models which would be difficult for the average diver to verify. The things which the diver may actually notice and identify as a difference usually involve ergonomics, comfort, bubble dispersion, etc.

 

[Teamcasa]

Magazine reviews, like most of the articles are entertaining and sometimes actually informative. I like most divers like the satisfaction of seeing my choice of gear being rated highly and given good reviews. Reviews also let us see new gear that is not in our local dive shops yet.
People’s opinion rarely changes based on reviews but, like here on ScubaBoard, we all like to get the scoop on new gear.

Divers, like anyone else can be very brand loyal and fiercely defend their choice. Should their choice be given a poor review they quickly resort to bashing the magazine, test procedures and competency of the testers. If their gear choice is rated highly, like family vacation photos, they proudly announce the high rating in the same magazine.

For me, I’d be happy just to see a better quality of photography in the magazines.

 

[Scubastud16]

I've played around on the surface with a Hollis DC1, and a friend has had it to 100 fsw. It breathes smooooooooooooth. It's as if there is no cracking pressure...it's like breathing ambient air.

 

[spectrum]

The items reviewed are filterd by the title of the article for starters. "10 new models for 2008" ,well what about the better model from 2006 that is still current? Some brands refuse to partcipate simply to avoid getting caught up in what may be unfavoarable data. They see more risk than benefit. In the end it's good reading and can teach you some about process and maybe weed out some junk. They are less than helpful in finding conclusively your best choice.

Pete

 

[Teamcasa]

Some brands refuse to partcipate simply to avoid getting caught up in what may be unfavoarable data.

I’m sure most manufacturers do agree and send in gear to be tested. The manufacturer is not likely to send in gear they know won’t pass muster, but is that all that gets included in the review?

It would be nice if the publication doing the review discloses who sent in gear and who did not.

 

[AbyssalPlains]

In short, I don't care about these kinds of reviews, for two reasons. First, the measurements are obtained on a computerized breathing machine that is way more sensitive than any human being, and second, more often than not, the results differ by minute amounts, if at all. When it comes to choosing a reg, I prefer to buy what appears to have a long-standing and proven track record as attested by the people who use them. To me, reliability and ease of serviceability are much more important. Frankly, I was never able to detect a difference in breathing performance between the regs I have tried. I have heard of people "overbreathing" their regs, but I believe that if it comes down to that, something else went seriously wrong. If you are breathing so hard that your reg has trouble keeping up, you're in trouble anyway.

The list of regs you quote is a good example: If you look around, you will find that a lot of serious and tech divers use the one reg that was reviewed slightly less favorably (the ScubaPro), but I have yet to see a Sherwood or an Aeris on one of those guys. Hollis might be great, but until now I haven't even heard about that brand. I stick with tried and proven stuff.

Oh, and one more thing: If it is Scuba Diving Mag we're talking about here, I think their "reviews" are thinly disguised advertising at best. I have read every issue over the past three years and not a single time did I see a review that was even remotely unfavorable, let alone discouraged people from buying a particular piece of gear. Have you noticed how each review has that category, "Benefits to your diving"? They always find something positive to say. A review that doesn't have a "Minus" section in addition to the "Plus" section, is worthless IMHO, no more, no less.

 

[pescador775]

PTgear, to answer your overarching question, "do divers care about these tests?". I do, and trust Scubalab. I have bought products based on their tests, or based on my own analysis to have that purchase validated later by SL tests. I bought a pair of Mares Plana Avanti Tre stemming solely from the results of tests conducted by SL. I was not disappointed. Really superior FF fins.

Sifting through the regulator tests is more complex and not all the variables tested will be important to all divers. However, as Casa alluded, some divers don't care what objective results or expert opinion is offered, they have their favorite and that's that. This goes to extremes when many divers call SL tests biased or "not balanced" or something of the sort. The most sophisticated of these conspiracy buffs reference obscure discrepancies in the number or variety of items tested, who supplied them, etc. It's all bull. Scubalab performs an important service, IMO.

PS, pteranodon has a point about "track record". This is a most important part of the decision making process.

 

[halocline]

The problem with ranking regulators is that they're all good, as long as they're tuned well. Any remotely decent regulator will supply much more air than any diver could possibly breathe at recreational depths. The WOB numbers are so low throughout that there is very little meaningful difference between the numbers. Being happy with a reg over the long haul usually means long-term reliability, ease of service, and the reg's ability to hold a tune over a long time.

I've read a few funny but scary posts about the sherwood lately; you might want to check those out. The nice thing about the SP G250V is that it's actually an older design brought back to life after decades of solid service.