Testing Facilities

I think the review emphasis varies from magazine to magazine.

We chose to spend a very hefty six-figure sum on the design and build of six listening/viewing rooms, as you can read here, just to ensure consistent results when auditioning products.

Other magazines use freelance reviewers who tend to review at home, while others place a lot of emphasis on lab-testing equipment, and have a close relationship with manufacturers of test equipment such as this.

I spend quite a bit of time in the WHFSV rooms, but I also tend to take equipment home when I am testing it for Gramophone, as I find 'living with it' helps no end in writing the longer reviews we run in that magazine.

I guess it's a case of different strokes for different folks, and indicative of the different emphasis of each magazine.

Thanks for the detailed reply Andrew - much appreciated.

Do you go in with a different perspective between the two publications you write/edit for? Apart from the obvious difference between the target audiences, I'd imagine your typical "Gramophone" reader has a different set of priorities than their WHFS&V counterpart. Does this change your approach to the equipment under test, or is that fundamentally the same regardless of the final destination of your piece?

Well, the music is obviously very different, and there's much less emphasis on 'sound per pound'.

But otherwise much the same, other than the fact that - with only room for two products a month - the duff stuff doesn't get a look-in.

(checks Gramophone for Arcam reviews)

Now that's just mischievous, JD. Obviously there are also many very good products I just don't have toom for, too.

It was, yes.

Andrew Everard:

Now that's just mischievous, JD. Obviously there are also many very good products I just don't have toom for, too.

In your living toom or your dining toom?

Hi,

My living toom definitely. My dining toom is non existant. 
Cheers,

Cofnchtr.