436 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

I should have said blind "ABX" tests, which is of course what I meant, JD  Smile

Al ears's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 23/11/2008 - 19:20
Posts: 2815
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

the record spot wrote:

WinterRacer wrote:

the record spot wrote:

Indeed, in your opinion.  There's no reason why a Breitling should cost £7500.  Presumably it is ludicrous too, no?  And if it isn't why not?  It's the same tired old diatribe.  If a manufacturer wants to pitch itself at that market space, and I had a quick look at the Cardas site which produces pricey wires, and on the pages I saw, they make no claim about being "more accurate".  But they do sell their wires at a premium price.  Good luck to them.  People should be free to make their choices, an in informed manner without being ridiculed for doing so.  

 

In your opinion, do you think magazine reviews, such as those from WHFSV, provide consumers with adequate information to make an informed decision?  

 

 

It depends.  Which consumer segment are you talking about, what do you consider to be adequate information for that target market, and what you feel an "informed" decision is.   

If you want to target - as is the fun thing to do with the science mob - WHFS&V, then I think their reviews are probably okay for most people, but that's without my foreknowledge (and I assume yours too) of their circulation statistics.  

Do you think it would benefit their readership, if WHF ran the odd blind test of products that have no proven benefit?

It might do ............ but hang on, how do you know they have no proven benefit unless you have already tested them??

Loads of second hand expensive kit!

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 22993
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

I should have said blind "ABX" tests, which is of course what I meant, JD  Smile

So set up a magazine that does that and let us know how you get on.

Anonymous
Anonymous's picture
RE: more 'snake oil'

the record spot wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

Do you think it would benefit their readership, if WHF ran the odd blind test of products that have no proven benefit?

 

You're too late mate; I knew all about IDC's tests page ages ago and the St. Andrews Uni test page before that.  Personally, I couldn't care less.  I use a £3 coax cable, a £30 interconnect, a £200 pair of Atlas Navigators, a £8 optical cable, a £10 Tesco HDMI cable and a £30 Hitachi HDMI cable.  So shoot me.  

I don't care either  :), but come on, what do you think? I think it would be very beneficial to their readership if WHF conducted some blind ABX tests on products that have no proven benefit, like your interconnects and HDMI cables. Surely you have an opinion on whether these tests would help the public?
professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11034
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

I don't care either  :), but come on, what do you think? I think it would be very beneficial to their readership if WHF conducted some blind ABX tests on products that have no proven benefit, like your interconnects and HDMI cables. Surely you have an opinion on whether these tests would help the public?

Probably 90% (or maybe even more) of WHF's readership have never even heard of blind ABX tests. I never had until I joined this forum. Why? Because they don't really have any relevance in the everyday world (and by that I mean most people just don't do blind ABX tests before buying anything). They have a look or a listen at things and then choose the one they like best.

 

The owls are not what they seem...

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 22993
RE: more 'snake oil'

professorhat wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

I don't care either  :), but come on, what do you think? I think it would be very beneficial to their readership if WHF conducted some blind ABX tests on products that have no proven benefit, like your interconnects and HDMI cables. Surely you have an opinion on whether these tests would help the public?

Probably 90% (or maybe even more) of WHF's readership have never even heard of blind ABX tests. I never had until I joined this forum. Why? Because they don't really have any relevance in the everyday world.

And because people buy it because they need a telly?

professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 22 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11034
RE: more 'snake oil'

Exactly.

 

The owls are not what they seem...

SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

Dynamight wrote:

the record spot wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

Do you think it would benefit their readership, if WHF ran the odd blind test of products that have no proven benefit?

 

You're too late mate; I knew all about IDC's tests page ages ago and the St. Andrews Uni test page before that.  Personally, I couldn't care less.  I use a £3 coax cable, a £30 interconnect, a £200 pair of Atlas Navigators, a £8 optical cable, a £10 Tesco HDMI cable and a £30 Hitachi HDMI cable.  So shoot me.  

I don't care either  :), but come on, what do you think? I think it would be very beneficial to their readership if WHF conducted some blind ABX tests on products that have no proven benefit, like your interconnects and HDMI cables. Surely you have an opinion on whether these tests would help the public?

 

I don't get why you keep demanding WHF to do this. It's a mainstream "pop" mag, scientifi ABX testing would appeal to a small minority of its readership, and probably have a negative effect on its circulation figures (as the whole idea is pretty boring to most readers I suspect). You can surely tell from the slightly colloquial style where it's target demograph is.

There are other journals with a much greater scientific bias, perhaps better to make this demand of them where it might be a more logical alignment with their position. Nothing at all wrong with the concept of blind testing, just I suspect you are trying to swim upstream here.

Craig M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 20/03/2008 - 20:10
Posts: 2871
RE: more 'snake oil'

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

I should have said blind "ABX" tests, which is of course what I meant, JD  Smile

So set up a magazine that does that and let us know how you get on.

And there's the rub.  I remember reading posts made by Alan Sircom on hifi wigwam along the lines of 'mags that engage in ab/x testing go bust, no-one wants to read that everything sounds the same'.  Basically, a fair portion of people who regularly buy hifi mags and, by extension, post regularly on hifi forums, actually want there to be differences between bits of wire, etc.  I'm just glad I tried my own blind testing and woke up.

paradiziac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 08/01/2011 - 08:49
Posts: 609
RE: more 'snake oil'

Imagine What Car? coming out with the line, "they're all tin boxes on 4 wheels, don't waste your money"...

the record spot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 24 min ago
Joined: 13/10/2007 - 14:36
Posts: 9252
RE: more 'snake oil'

Nope; no opinion either way I'm afraid.  There are just too many other things in the world to get worked up over and which are far more important.  I used to be bothered; hence the £3 interconnect, or the £7 Tesco cable.  But then I bought a £30 HDMI cable last year.  Why?  I'd just bought a Blu-Ray player in Currys.  Or Comet, whichever and that was what they had.  They had other ones that cost way more, but it was fine for me.  It's well built, good construction and works.  So does the £7 Tesco one. 

And why limit it to just WHF?  It's the drum that's banged loudest on another forum that I know about, to the point of obsession at times I think.  Add to the list, The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Hi-Fi's World/Choice/News....just about all of them acknowledge the cable debate and all of them test them.  

Whether a bunch of people on a few hifi forums going round in ever decreasing circles make that much of a difference, I have no idea.  Changing buying habits (or selling ones) is not that easy.  FWIW, I have a lot of time for WHF's approach and honesty and have bought on the back of their recommendation several times.

Craig M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 20/03/2008 - 20:10
Posts: 2871
RE: more 'snake oil'

professorhat wrote:

 They have a look or a listen at things and then choose the one they like best.

 

According to a couple of shops near me, they tend to just ask for the whf award winners.  I once went to a shop in York when I was first thinking of upgrading my first hifi, hoping for some good advice from the sales staff, instead they told me to look through whf and decide what I wanted from the reviews.  I've never been back.  The shop was Vickers (when they were on Gillygate) in case anyone's interested.

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 15 min ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 22993
RE: more 'snake oil'

Craig M. wrote:

a fair portion of people who regularly buy hifi mags and, by extension, post regularly on hifi forums, actually want there to be differences between bits of wire

I just want them to look pretty on my cable elevators.

Craig M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 20/03/2008 - 20:10
Posts: 2871
RE: more 'snake oil'

paradiziac wrote:

Imagine What Car? coming out with the line, "they're all tin boxes on 4 wheels, don't waste your money"...

:roll:  I think if you blind folded me, stuck ear plugs in my ears and strapped me into the passenger seat of a Fiat 500 and then a Ferrari Enzo, I'd be able to tell they weren't the same car.

SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

paradiziac wrote:

Imagine What Car? coming out with the line, "they're all tin boxes on 4 wheels, don't waste your money"...

 

I agree. Very few people buy cars because of their dynamic prowess, mainly the percieved excellence. The original Audi A4 handled like a bag of spanners, the MkII not much better, but that didn't stop it establishing itself a credible alternative to a 3 series, despite the fact that all the way through the 90s it (the beemer) was by far the better drivers car; and we're all drivers, right?  Smile

 

Pages

Log in or register to post comments