more 'snake oil'
(the beemer) was by far the better drivers car
I preferred my Saab 9-5 to my 3-Series by a factor of about 47 (for those who like measurements). What did the reviews say?
It was sh*t.
Exactly. I LOVED mine. Like a sofa on wheels.
You haven't read What Car? for a while, have you?
Nah, that one's been done. Lots.
I regularly work with large financial institutions transferring billions of pounds a day across digital networks I support. If there was any chance, any science to support expensive digital cables providing more accuracy do you not think they would already have the best money could buy? £200 for a cable would pay for itself in minutes if it provided 0.001% greater accuracy than another. Or is this some secret only the hi-fi community know about? Get real.
Just to say Tonestar, this argument is used again and again - the way those transactions are completed uses a completely different protocol to the one used to transmit audio data in hifi. Those transactions have to be error free - there is no way there can be any errors as it would cause untold issues. So the communication protocol used guarantees data is transmitted error free - it's impossible. They can do this because, for this sort of data, it doesn't matter if data arrives out of order, and therefore data can be resent if it's been corrupted and sorted out later.
Audio data has to arrive in a certain order, but it's not crucial that data is absolutely error free - data can't be resent otherwise it wouldn't work. So a different protocol is used which will get things right most of the time, but it's not guaranteed. If you tried to use the same protocol to send your financial data over hundreds of miles, it just simply wouldn't work - simple as.
Funnily enough though, I do remember reading an article about how somewhere in Asia, a load of fibre optic cable had been replaced for a different kind in order to speed up the transactions. This was precisely for the reason you've stated above i.e. because the data effectively got there faster due to less errors (and therefore less data needing to be resent), it paid for itself very quickly when it came to these split second financial transactions. I'll see if I can track the article down.
Nah, that one's been done. Lots.
I've been off the forums for a while. I thought it was quite a strong point 
http://reviews.argos.co.uk/1493-en_gb/14418671/category.htm
"I needed toaster and I bought it."
Epic. 
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?
Absolutely not! The best they can do is make your aware of options and opinions. Why are they so limited? Well not because they don't do blind tests, although the fact that they won't even consider them shows me that they know they they would fail were they to be subjected to them. I'm quite willing to listen to subjective opinions about things but I want to get those from people who actually have the kit in question not people who make a living out of inflating hype about products. I suppose the real problem is that I've read reviews here which don't match perceived reality and so I suspect the judgement of those writing the reviews. They are only journalists after all!
No I'd rather dredge information from the postings on this and other forums and if you work at it you can do that. There are many people posting here with firmly held opinions of things that I might not agree with but whose opinion is worth listening to because they have put a lot of work into forming it.
On a personal note they don't use enough of the music I want to listen to when auditioning kit to make the reviews meaningful. I'm not knocking other people's music but if they tell me it sounds great playing something I've never heard of it's hard to judge what that means! I understand that they have to cater for the majority though. So I go elsewhere and get opinions from people who like the same type of music as me.
Chris
PS An expensive watch is a status symbol not a device for telling you the time, although it does that as well. An expensive hifi may be the same thing. There's a guy in my apartment block with a Lambo and every day he drives about 500 yards to his office in it and if he gets above 20 mph it's a miracle. (He has to drive at about 1 mph down our ramp to avoid ripping the bottom off the car.) It's a lovely car though and he's a nice guy but its function isn't as a car.
Funnily enough though, I do remember reading an article about how somewhere in Asia, a load of fibre optic cable had been replaced for a different kind in order to speed up the transactions. This was precisely for the reason you've stated above i.e. because the data effectively got there faster due to less errors (and therefore less data needing to be resent), it paid for itself very quickly when it came to these split second financial transactions. I'll see if I can track the article down.
Here it is. It's in fact a cable which offers greater bandwidth, meaning data is sent faster. However, the point I've made stands i.e. with more bandwidth, errors can be resent quicker resulting in faster communication.
To ask WHF to a blind tests is bit like asking Toaster Magazine to do one. You would get a result that would confuse and perplex and put people off buying that magazine. That is because we buy all our hifi kit and toasters sighted and listen to and make toast sighted. So is not the case that sighted reviews are the most accurate for the real world audiophile and toast aficionado?
If a review states item x has more bass, I want it be because it has got more bass, not because it's got a really heavy case. Clearly articles need to be readable and in keeping with the style of mag, but sorting out real performance gains from those that are purely cosmetic would, IMO, be very much in the interest of the consumer, audiophile or not.
This is the crux of the matter for me.
"This item makes the best toasted sandwiches ever"
Bet HE hasn't ABXed...
I regularly work with large financial institutions transferring billions of pounds a day across digital networks I support. If there was any chance, any science to support expensive digital cables providing more accuracy do you not think they would already have the best money could buy? £200 for a cable would pay for itself in minutes if it provided 0.001% greater accuracy than another. Or is this some secret only the hi-fi community know about? Get real.
Just to say Tonestar, this argument is used again and again - the way those transactions are completed uses a completely different protocol to the one used to transmit audio data in hifi. Those transactions have to be error free - there is no way there can be any errors as it would cause untold issues. So the communication protocol used guarantees data is transmitted error free - it's impossible. They can do this because, for this sort of data, it doesn't matter if data arrives out of order, and therefore data can be resent if it's been corrupted and sorted out later.
Audio data has to arrive in a certain order, but it's not crucial that data is absolutely error free - data can't be resent otherwise it wouldn't work. So a different protocol is used which will get things right most of the time, but it's not guaranteed. If you tried to use the same protocol to send your financial data over hundreds of miles, it just simply wouldn't work - simple as.
Funnily enough though, I do remember reading an article about how somewhere in Asia, a load of fibre optic cable had been replaced for a different kind in order to speed up the transactions. This was precisely for the reason you've stated above i.e. because the data effectively got there faster due to less errors (and therefore less data needing to be resent), it paid for itself very quickly when it came to these split second financial transactions. I'll see if I can track the article down.
Music streaming is time dependant for it to work. The packets of data used to transmit financial data across continents, or even to your printer are simply buffered and read when the device is ready. It's the time dependency that makes music reproduction a very different challenge.
"This item makes the best toasted sandwiches ever"
Bet HE hasn't ABXed...
mad Abxed man.
Absolutely not! The best they can do is make your aware of options and opinions. Why are they so limited? Well not because they don't do blind tests, although the fact that they won't even consider them shows me that they know they they would fail were they to be subjected to them. I'm quite willing to listen to subjective opinions about things but I want to get those from people who actually have the kit in question not people who make a living out of inflating hype about products. I suppose the real problem is that I've read reviews here which don't match perceived reality and so I suspect the judgement of those writing the reviews. They are only journalists after all!
No I'd rather dredge information from the postings on this and other forums and if you work at it you can do that. There are many people posting here with firmly held opinions of things that I might not agree with but whose opinion is worth listening to because they have put a lot of work into forming it.
I think you need both sets of opinions. Owners are often heavily biassed and are unlikely to have heard enough comparable products with which to make a proper comparison.....or heard the component with as wide a variety of different kit.
Saying that, owners' insights can also be invaluable and as they can talk about the product as a long term proposition.
But the thing is, the big question in question doesn't answer any questions, what it does do is allude to the benefits of the products involved. Inadvertantly? No, I think it's obviously designed to do this, for obvious reasons.
As an entertaining feature? No, sorry, I'm just being silly aren't I 
As I remember though, the HDMI cable BQ feature suggested two of the readers preferred the cheaper HDMI. So not sure how that benefitted the evil cable manufacturers.
No, the big question isn't always a success, if success is to help sell certain products. I remember the one that tested Blu-ray players being pretty inconclusive, and there was much quoting of the participants views on the day on here in various threads afterwards, it wasn't a great BQ for the expensive BDP makers/sellers etc.
But, that was soon remedied when your good self went on a little WHF shopping trip for a new BDP , when if I recall correctly (and my apologies in advance if I'm wrong), you demoed three players in three different shops on three different TVs before declaring that the PQ of the Marantz was much better. NowI know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good 
- Login to post comments
Before I start getting shot down. This is my opinion, nothing else.
To be honest, I enjoy reading WHF and don't need anymore science. I have bought the mag religiously for years and still enjoy reading it very much.
However, I think what hi-fi would gain a lot more credibility if it stopped making ridiculous claims that one length of glass can transmit digital light pulses better than another. Or that a decent quality HDMI cable can't transmit colour or provide blacks as deep as a similar quality cable. It's a joke, digital cables are a passive medium, nothing else. If it’s half decent quality it will work. End of story.
I regularly work with large financial institutions transferring billions of pounds a day across digital networks I support. If there was any chance, any science to support expensive digital cables providing more accuracy do you not think they would already have the best money could buy? £200 for a cable would pay for itself in minutes if it provided 0.001% greater accuracy than another. Or is this some secret only the hi-fi community know about? Get real.
I think WHF printing such nonsense damages reader’s confidence in the reviewer as well as seriously damaging the credibility of the magazine on the whole. Saying one digital cable is better than another defies all of the fundamental principles of science and makes me think crackpot. It reminds me of the new wave of creationists arguing against evolution. 100% pure science and experimentation against "we know what we know to be the absolute truth, so we must be right no matter what evidence is presented against us"
If someone wants to go and buy a £500 HDMI or optical then fair play, it’s their money to spend as they choose.
In all my experience of trying and testing, supported by a physics/chemistry background and 12 years experience in LAN/WAN networking, as well as the excellent evidence supplied by IDC in his blog, I think you are wasting your money.
My two bobs worth.