Fair enough. If that's the case, what I say is overly simplistic, but only ever so slighlty.
Yes it is, as was my description of the relationship, but only ever so slightly.
Surely it's easy to imagine the call to Henley Designs: 'so we've given a WHF award to Audio Technica, two to Roksan, given a five star review to Olive, several to Pro-Ject. Would you like to take out 6 months of insude front covers or failing that some column adverts near the buyer's guide? I'm sure you'll be sending in some new kit in that time and if you keep up your recent high standards then the ads and reviews will give some great exposure.'
Is this really so shocking? I don't see how it diminishes the integrity of the mag in any way.
It is easy to imagine, and not shocking at all. But it's a completely different statement to the one that has been levelled in the past, which is that advertising implies good reviews which, as far as I could tell in the two years I was there, is nonsense.
Cambridge Audio StreamMagic 6 | 751BD | 651A | Diamond 9.1 | Minx Xi | Sonos Play:3
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com
Anyone on the advertising stuff indulging in such 'nudge nudge, wink wink' advertising sales techniques a) wouldn't be able to carry through on their promise, and b) wouldn't be around long enough to realise they couldn't.
Audio Editor, Gramophone
And the latter is a statement I've never in my time on the forum levelled at WHF, and have been at pains to make clear on this thread I've not been saying it.
I'm glad someone agrees my formulation is easy to imagine and not shocking, although Andrew still seems to have a hard time admitting this innocent possiblity. It's got to be how advertising works, how else would WHF maximise advertising revenue and consequently keep producing such a professional magazine that many people love and a free forum?
HiFi / A/V / Bedroom
What promise? There's no promise and there's no nudge nudge. There's a statement that there's already been good reviews and a presumption that more products will be sent in for review over a period of time that the advertising would cover. There's no guarantee, implied or explicit, of good reviews, let alone that reviews woule be dependent on advertising.
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.
To both of you - the test rooms have near perfect balance and decay from treatment - that means they are right, rooms at home are wrong.
I heard Cyrus in one of the test rooms - just the 6S and it was very good indeed They are not bright at all - they create wonderful deep sound stage - get on the Big Quesiton if you dont believe me and ist not surprising get great review. I owned and sold a CD6S as I didnt like it a few years before. If it sounded like that in my room I would not have sold it. I dont want to degrade this thread into a debate over this - but for those comments I think you are off the mark.
The only criticism I have after meeting with some of WHF team related to reviews on blu ray players and HDMI cables etc is that they told me they dont calibrate the tvs - just setup, use / test them as best as possible by eye - as the average punter does - which is fair enough.
Now the main problem with that kind of relates to testing hifi. if you test hifi out of a treated room then the room has its effect and the test isnt 100% fair to all. Now a calibrated tv is more likely to show up differences than a non calibrated tv - something maybe to consider.
I know some new tvs come close to fully calibrated out of the box now - however I think my theory maybe holds some merit in this regard, especially if using projectors to test as I would guess they are very difficult to come calibrated out of the box.
I also really dont get the consensus that all BD players have identical picture - I have owned a Panasonic and 3 Pioneers and they have all been different to me otherwise I would never have changed. And its not just the image I feel is different - its the movement quality as well that changes
Meridian G61R, HD621, Bryston 9BSST
Optimised Audio PC - J River / JPlay / Custom Full Linear Power Supply
Panasonic 65VT65, Marantz UD7007, HIFi Racks Podium Reference
Monitor Audio GX100, GXC150, Apex A10, BK XLS400 (set with hard knee house curve)
JCAT USB and Sata, Graham Slee Spatia (SC) Graham Slee Lautus Digital / Analogue IC x 9
The only criticism I have after meeting with some of WHF team related to reviews on blu ray players and HDMI cables etc is that they told me they dont calibrate the tvs - just use / test them as best as possible by eye - as the average punter does - which is fair enough
I'm not sure that's right, I thought I'd read that several WHF reviewers are ISF qualified (and presumably therefore use those skills). If I was in the market for a new TV I would put a great deal of faith in WHF, I think they're pretty spot on.
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.
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.
Have you actually bought a Blu-ray player based on an AVForum review then?
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'm merely making the point that our advertising staff sell on the circulation and reach of the magazine (and increasingly the website) without getting involved in any aspect of what the manufacturer may or may not be sending in future for review, which is the responsibility of the editorial department. The two are both physically and ideologically separated, and those few advertising staff who have thought it possible to short-circuit that distanced relationship have lasted a very brief time indeed.
I know it sounds crazy: to take the seemingly obvious route would appear to make life simpler for all on the magazine. But it's a very short-term, and suicidal, strategy.
Not really. I own a Sony bdp-s370 (I think) and bdp-s185. Both were bought on price and functionality, ie both very cheap, both with iplayer and YouTube and the s185 is tiny. I will have checked a bunch of reviews to check there weren't any major problems, which includes WHF and any avforums review (can't remember if they reviewed them) but I wouldn't say any review was the basis for my purchase. If I upgraded I would have oppo at the forefront of my mind.
no. None of what hifi reviewers are ISF qualified.
Are you sure about that?
In a thread last year the (then) Group Editor stated the opposite in this thread ...
Yes, that's the thread I was thinking of.
It looks like the difference between being trained and being qualified.
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
Well that's nearly four years old now! Plus as I understand it there are different levels of isf training.
© 2014 Haymarket Publishing