Yes, but so what? It makes no difference to you, unless you're on commission?
Gel's position is just as silly, he's now dismissing it solely on the basis of this one review, despite the other good reviews, the answer's the same as it is for everything else, demo it for yourself and then decide.
I don't see why my stance is silly, I have used What HiFi as a buying guide for about 11 years. Not all of us can demo so your stance is just as silly. As regard to other reviews what has that got to do with this one? Perhaps I don't want to read other ones.
"Yep, read the HCC review too, and do use them as a buying guide too."
You already have read another one. One of them says it's not that great the other the complete opposite, so how do you make a decision based on that? If that's your only evidence then neither decision is sound. Therefore trying it for yourself is the only answer. And I meant "silly" in an affection way, of course!
Over the years I have learnt what to go by and what not to go by, and on this one I have trust in WHF, I use the other ones as back up more than anything. Don't think there is anything wrong in that.
I do remember how you weren't happy with WHF reviews when they rated Pioneer down, about 3 years ago!
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router
It got 3 stars because Oppo's a Chinese company that doesn't advertise in WHF, who are essentially saying by giving 3 stars, pay up like the rest of them or take the poor reviews on the chin.
Another very comprehensive and very favourable review:
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
It states the Pioneer DVD upscaling is just as good as the Oppo though. And it states the Oppo is no better at DVD upscaling than budget Blu-ray players.
Not to my eyes.
In the review or your experience with the Oppo?
Main AV Setup: Panasonic 50VT65 TV, Pioneer Bdp-lx71, Pioneer Vsx-lx70, B&W FPM Series, B&W PV1, Optimum AV300 AV Stand, QED Silver Anniversary XT Speaker Cable & Chord Silver Plus HDMI Cables. Gadgets: iPad 4 & iPhone 4S.
I don't see the relevance? If I didn't think a product should have been marked down that was up to me. Does not mean I don't trust the reviews.
You're definitely right about kef I don't know with oppo, WHF have always consistently marked them down compared to other reviews, but I've never used them myself. I don't really trust WHF on all things blu ray and hdmi as my views are the same as big boss's. I would trust the extremely comprehensive avforums reviews for blu ray players. As for motivation, I'm really not sure.
Edit: to give possible alternative reasons: on PQ WHF would be right to say hd performance is similar (identical) to cheaper players. Not that this is a reason to mark them down. For SQ I suspect the oppo may be pretty neutral, which doesn't suit WHF's listening room and reviewer tastes, so any screechier BDPs (Cambridge has a rep for being bright) may get marked better.
I agree. I'd have loved to have pulled the trigger on a 93 or a 103 but instead use a cheapo Sony bdp, I think I paid £80. I can't justify £500 when I would be getting slightly better upscaling and a nicer chassis. If I had integrated hifi and av the 105 would be very tempting, but I never play CDs through my av system.
Like some others, I've tired generally of subjective reviews. I actually think WHF is right a large proportion of the time. Inevitably though with such subjectivity they will sometimes over mark and sometimes under mark products. It's not worth owners getting upset about either way.
Good point re the listening rooms though, I believe they're heavily damped which may explain WHFs apparent liking for bright speakers - like KEFs - though I doubt the different DACs employed would exhibit audible differences.
Indeed. It can be seen from the pics / videos that they are heavily damped. I'm aware of manufacturers complaining of this but also saying products have been voiced to be bright in order to get a five star WHF review, it's that important. This presumably explains Cyrus and kef's popularity, amongst others. I don't particular buy into the advertising conspiracy theory, although I'm confident there is more of a symbiotic relationship than WHF lets on about. I have no problem with that, I think it would do WHF a favour in the long run if they were open about this.
More instructions from HDD forum Max? Do you even realise how much of their lapdog you are?
No signature worth mentioning...
Hmm, what I said could easily be misinterpreted, so as I'm now on a computer allow me to expand. Andrew and others have repeatedly said the fact that company A spends a lot on advertising or that company B spends nothing has no influence on the (separate) review team and what score they'll give a product. There are certainly plenty of examples of companies who don't advertise at all but who's products get good scores (ATC definitely, Rega I think, others I'm sure),
My mum used to work selling advertising for a couple of leading trade magazines (in furniture and bathrooms, exciting stuff). Like WHF, these magazines had a mix of reviews and adverts, as well as individual 'seps' and advertorials. There, too, reviews were not improved on the basis of advertising spend. However, if there was a favourable review for a particular company in an upcoming edition, as a matter of course that company would be contacted to see if they would like to advertise. It would be in their interests as it was more powerful for an ad to be accompanied by a strong review in the same edition or adjacent to the ad or following an inside cover ad (like Cyrus did for ages, and may still be doing).
So, if an ad appears in the same edition as a favourable review, it is possible to mistake cause and effect.
Expanding on that, the better the contact between the mag and the company the better the relationship. These two things are what I mean by a symbiotic relationship. The companies need the mag, as favourable reviews and good exposure push sales. The mag needs the companies not only for advertising revenue but also because without products to review there is no mag. So I can easily imagine a situation where a particular company, eg Cyrus, has built up a good relationship with the mag over time both with the ad department and the review department, where they take regular ads for good exposure, and they happily supply products (not only temporarily for review but permanently for WHF's ongoing comparisons) safe in the knowledge not that their advertising guarantees a good review but that they are on a run of favourable reviews because they happen to match WHF tastes and that is likely to continue.
As I said, I don't see a problem with this as I don't have a problem with the concept of the companies needing the mag and the mag needing the companies. If there is any truth in this, I feel WHF would be better being open about it as it isn't sinister, and simply saying 'advertising has no effect on reviews' makes people distrusting and makes them come up with conspiracy theories.
Rather OT but there we go...
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing