436 posts / 0 new
Last post
professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 22 hours ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11026
RE: more 'snake oil'

[UNPUBLISHED]

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

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. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.

Damn you and your argument-countering facts...

Curses, he was right. I guess the confusion on my part comes from the fact that we actually did that Savvy Shopper article before the BQ article was released (clearly we had to have done, in order to get it in the magazine for the following issue). The reason I remember this is I remember being surprised at the result (given my own experiences just a few weeks before!).

The other part of this is, it was my decision to go looking at Blu-ray players, not WHFs. They didn't ring me up, ask me to look at a few players and in the heat of the moment I got carried away and purchased the Marantz! I'd wanted to upgrade for a while - applied for the Savvy Shopper and I was chosen mostly because I was local so neither of us would have far to travel. It was only after the initial phone call to see if I was interested in doing it that I made it clear I wanted to look at Blu-ray players (and this was all before that BQ article came out). WHF set up the auditions and documented the day, but it was my decision and mine alone (and yes, I did pay for the player!).

But I'm not sure why I'm writing this, since it's not going to change Max's mind. And also the fact that idc has really said everything that needs to be said on this subject from my point of view:

idc wrote:

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?

 

The owls are not what they seem...

professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 22 hours ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11026
RE: more 'snake oil'

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

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. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.

Damn you and your argument-countering facts...

Curses, he was right. I guess the confusion on my part comes from the fact that we actually did that Savvy Shopper article before the BQ article was released (clearly we had to have done, in order to get it in the magazine for the following issue). The reason I remember this is I remember being surprised at the result (given my own experiences just a few weeks before!).

Dynamight wrote:

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. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good

Yes, but I wasn't attempting to compare each player in each shop with each other - that would be ridiculous clearly (since as you say, each one was using a different TV for a start). I always had my existing Blu-ray player as a reference in each shop. So each new player was compared with my existing player side by side. In this way, I could make comparisons on the new player with my old player and then decide if the improvement was worth it from this.

The other part of this is, it was my decision to go looking at Blu-ray players, not WHFs. They didn't ring me up, ask me to look at a few players and in the heat of the moment I got carried away and purchased the Marantz! I'd wanted to upgrade for a while - applied for the Savvy Shopper and I was chosen mostly because I was local so neither of us would have far to travel. It was only after the initial phone call to see if I was interested in doing it that I made it clear I wanted to look at Blu-ray players (and this was all before that BQ article came out). WHF set up the auditions and documented the day, but it was my decision and mine alone (and yes, I did pay for the player!).

But I'm not sure why I'm writing this, since it's not going to change Max's mind. And also the fact that idc has really said everything that needs to be said on this subject from my point of view:

idc wrote:

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?

 

The owls are not what they seem...

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12916
RE: more 'snake oil'

andyjm wrote:
'Manchester biphase mark encoding'

I think I went to school with him. I mean we called him Bi Manc Mark but it must be the same bloke...

SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

professorhat wrote:

andyjm wrote:

1. Packets can and do arrive in a different order to the order sent.  They don't overtake each other on the same wire/fiber, but follow a different route through the network. TCP/IP does not assume a point to point connection.

And just to clear one last thing up, I don't believe anyone has said this. When I said data (or packets) can arrive out of order, I was referring to the fact that missing or corrupt packets could be resent when using TCP/IP - this doesn't then require every packet originally sent after it to also be resent - it can completely cope with the fact this packet has arrived after them. Clearly this wouldn't work when playing audio in real-time, so a different protocol is used.

I wouldn't normally care to post such a correction, but since this is my profession, I don't want people thinking I believe packets race each other down a wire trying to overtake each other Wacky Races style (though clearly this would be fantastic and a much more interesting subject if true!). 

 

 

Which i what I was trying to say, just not very well.

I guess the key issue then is how senstitive the receiving device is to jitter....and whether we can truly hear those differences.

What I do know is there is noticeable difference between the optical connection and the USB connection with my system, and it aint no fancy pants DAC neither. Explain that (without resorting to the it's all in my head argument).

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

professorhat wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

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. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.

Damn you and your argument-countering facts...

Curses, he was right. I guess the confusion on my part comes from the fact that we actually did that Savvy Shopper article before the BQ article was released (clearly we had to have done, in order to get it in the magazine for the following issue). The reason I remember this is I remember being surprised at the result (given my own experiences just a few weeks before!).

Dynamight wrote:

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. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good

Yes, but I wasn't attempting to compare each player in each shop with each other - that would be ridiculous clearly (since as you say, each one was using a different TV for a start). I always had my existing Blu-ray player as a reference in each shop. So each new player was compared with my existing player side by side. In this way, I could make comparisons on the new player with my old player and then decide if the improvement was worth it from this.

The other part of this is, it was my decision to go looking at Blu-ray players, not WHFs. They didn't ring me up, ask me to look at a few players and in the heat of the moment I got carried away and purchased the Marantz! I'd wanted to upgrade for a while - applied for the Savvy Shopper and I was chosen mostly because I was local so neither of us would have far to travel. It was only after the initial phone call to see if I was interested in doing it that I made it clear I wanted to look at Blu-ray players (and this was all before that BQ article came out). WHF set up the auditions and documented the day, but it was my decision and mine alone (and yes, I did pay for the player!).

But I'm not sure why I'm writing this, since it's not going to change Max's mind. And also the fact that idc has really said everything that needs to be said on this subject from my point of view:

idc wrote:

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?

 

Fair enough, perhaps my thinking that the timing and content of your Savvy Shopper was down to an agenda was wrong. But the problem is, whilst WHF continue to conduct the BQ in the manner that they do, testing many products that no competitors find differences between - which science backs up, people will be highly suspicious of their motives, and threads just like this will keep popping up, along with the same, uncomfortable questions.

 

idc has made some brilliant posts but the one you've quoted is wrong, IMO. Blind ABX tests wouldn't confuse anybody, in fact quite the opposite is true, people would be made aware of products that are pointless, like expensive digital cables, NAS drives, speaker cables, etc, and wouldn't feel the need to waste money on expensive versions of them.

But, blind ABX testing of these products would be a ridiculous idea from WHFs point of view, I'm sure nobody here needs an explanation why! So it'll never happen, simple as!

What should also never happen though, IMO, is WHF continually using expensive versions of products that have no scientific validity, as part of these BQs, as IMO the participants - while no doubt having a fun day out - are only there to lend credence to what really is indirect marketing of these expensive products. It isn't necessary and is insulting to their readership, IMO...

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

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

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. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.

Damn you and your argument-countering facts...

  Smile
DandyCobalt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 weeks ago
Joined: 08/10/2010 - 14:58
Posts: 1430
RE: more 'snake oil'

Jeez, please put this thread out of its misery!!!! A metaphorical bullet to the head will be fine, and appreciated by many other forum readers

RobinKidderminster's picture
Online
Last seen: 11 min 29 sec ago
Joined: 27/05/2009 - 14:24
Posts: 2522
RE: more 'snake oil'

Understood Dandy. However, we don't need to read threads which annoy us or in which we have no interest.

Cheers

Yamaha V2065. MS Mezzo 5.1 Panasonic 42. Sony BD. Garrard 86SB. WD Live TV. SkyHD.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/home-cinema/lounge-hc-signature-update-bass-traps

 

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23029
RE: more 'snake oil'

Max, have you read the BQ article in question?

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12916
RE: more 'snake oil'

John Duncan wrote:
Max,

Have you let him back on again? Mind you the direction this thread is already headed it won't be long before he's banned for potentially libellous comments anyway.

daveh75's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 31/07/2008 - 18:54
Posts: 8362
RE: more 'snake oil'

daveh75 wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

John Duncan wrote:

Dynamight wrote:

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. I know you're a very clever chap, but surely your memory isn't that good 

At least he demoed them and made up his own mind, rather than just buying something somebody else told them was good.

I'm also fairly sure the prof's trip was before the BQ in question, but hey...

It was defo after the BQ, the following edition or the one after that I think.

 

Those in glass houses...

 

I don't know how you've got the front to still post on here, especially when you seem to be insinuating some kind of agenga.

Given your past antics!

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1289
RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil'

Andrew Everard wrote:

Covenanter wrote:
Sorry Andrew but that's BS!

Firstly there is no connection between the amount of time spent doing something and the ability to do it.  For example I could spend all year training at a running track and at the end of it I'd still take me ages to do 100m if I didn't have a heart attack first.  If your "experts" are so great they would be willing to undertake double blind testing of their opinions and we know they aren't dont we!   

Secondly, of course they are interested in preserving the hype!  If the true situation is that there is no material difference between most of the kit then nobody would buy the magazine would they?  They have an obvious and self-evident reason for making us all believe we should spend lots of money on hifi kit. 

Thirdly, they are just journalists!  A good parallel is the Top Gear team.  Nobody with a brain cell would buy a car on the basis of the Top Gear recommendations, they reject cars on the basis that the boot is big enough to hold golf clubs.   The only difference is that the Top Gear guys are amusing.  :grin:

Chris

Given your continued attacks on the magazine, based on what you clearly feel you know (but which is in fact completely erroneous), there's little point in continuing this discussion.

And please stop dismissing everything with which you don't agree as 'BS': the repeated use of the term is dull, unimaginative and rather sad.

Andrew

I agree there is little point in the debate but from my point of view that's because you won't argue things on an objective basis.  Oh well!

Chris

PS Ad hominem comments should be beneath you.

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

The_Lhc wrote:

John Duncan wrote:
Max,

Have you let him back on again? Mind you the direction this thread is already headed it won't be long before he's banned for potentially libellous comments anyway.

 

Ahh, it all makes sense now.....the name gives it away.

chebby's picture
Offline
Last seen: 37 min 29 sec ago
Joined: 02/06/2008 - 09:40
Posts: 16034
RE: more 'snake oil'

So a (multiple) banned member can pop in under any old alias and discuss hi-fi with everyone as if nothing had ever happened. (Including a moderator who knows full well which banned member it is and even addresses him as such).

"We are currently awaiting the loading of our complement of small lemon-soaked paper napkins for your comfort, refreshment and hygiene during the journey."

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

I'd like to see a TV sitcom based around the partners of Hi-fi & TV freaks called HEADWAGS (High End Audio & Digital Wives & Girlfriends).

Jokes based on jitter, cable quality, top and bottom end, not to mention the density of blacks - well, in the right hands I feel this could be comedy gold.

Of course, you wouldn't want to be too populist, so it would only be viewable and listenable if you had the right setup.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pages

Log in or register to post comments