436 posts / 0 new
Last post
Craig M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 20/03/2008 - 20:10
Posts: 2898
RE: more 'snake oil'

Biggerboat wrote:

Why are some of you so defensive? 

I can only conclude you must disagree with the claims that these blue and green dots dont work? 

And have you actually spent the time to watch that video I posted?

How very strange.

 

Welcome to the world of hifi forums.  Strange just about sums it up.  Fwiw, I've watched that video in the past, there is far too much truth and knowledge in there for some of this lot.

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1350
RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil'

idc wrote:

Covenanter, you seem to arguing that there is no place for the review industry as a whole. But by doing that you risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

No I'm not arguing for that at all.  There are clear areas in HiFi where judgements can't be wholly objective, speakers are the obvious example, and I'm perfectly willing to listen to opinions in those areas.  However there are other areas where objective reviews could be undertaken.  Blind testing of cables, mains conditioners, etc could be undertaken very easily and those would be objective.  I find it deeply disturbing (and deeply suspicious) that people in the industry aren't willing to undertake such objective tests.

Another hobby of mine is photography (I'm seriously untalented as a photographer!) and that is another area where a natural phenomenum (light as opposed to sound) is transferred through a piece of electronics back into the natural phenomenum again.  There is also quite a large element of subjectivity in photography.  However the reviews in the photography magazines are much more objective.  Here is a link to a review of a lens (one I happen to own) on ephotozine which is perhaps the leading UK website:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-50mm-f-1-4-usm-interchangeable-lens-review-14849

The difference between this thorough review and the type of thing you get in a lot of the hifi industry as quite telling in my opinion.

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1350
RE: more 'snake oil'

WinterRacer wrote:

I think it's reasonable to expect WHF to identify products that actually influence SQ, rather than identify products that that look like they affect SQ.  Am I alone or unusual in wanting this?

 

 

 

You are not alone!

Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

pgoody's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 days ago
Joined: 03/05/2012 - 10:43
Posts: 56
RE: more 'snake oil'
idc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 02/01/2008 - 15:36
Posts: 7765
RE: more 'snake oil'

WinterRacer wrote:

I think it's reasonable to expect WHF to identify products that actually influence SQ, rather than identify products that that look like they affect SQ.  Am I alone or unusual in wanting this?

 

 

I supposed it is all about reporting on (reviewing) the subjective issue of SQ and not how that SQ is achieved. In any case, even I have listened to enough hifi to know irrespective of how it is made, some stuff is just not good enough and some stuff is superb.

idc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 02/01/2008 - 15:36
Posts: 7765
RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil'

Covenanter wrote:

idc wrote:

Covenanter, you seem to arguing that there is no place for the review industry as a whole. But by doing that you risk throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

No I'm not arguing for that at all.  There are clear areas in HiFi where judgements can't be wholly objective, speakers are the obvious example, and I'm perfectly willing to listen to opinions in those areas.  However there are other areas where objective reviews could be undertaken.  Blind testing of cables, mains conditioners, etc could be undertaken very easily and those would be objective.  I find it deeply disturbing (and deeply suspicious) that people in the industry aren't willing to undertake such objective tests.

Another hobby of mine is photography (I'm seriously untalented as a photographer!) and that is another area where a natural phenomenum (light as opposed to sound) is transferred through a piece of electronics back into the natural phenomenum again.  There is also quite a large element of subjectivity in photography.  However the reviews in the photography magazines are much more objective.  Here is a link to a review of a lens (one I happen to own) on ephotozine which is perhaps the leading UK website:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-ef-50mm-f-1-4-usm-interchangeable-lens-review-14849

The difference between this thorough review and the type of thing you get in a lot of the hifi industry as quite telling in my opinion.

Chris

 

Chris, I don't get this "There are clear areas in HiFi where judgements can't be wholly objective, speakers are the obvious example, and I'm perfectly willing to listen to opinions in those areas". Ultimately all SQ judgements are subjective, but within certain bounds which are not objective , but people would agree upon. For example the earlier photos of a good looking lady and a not so good looking one. Good looking is subjective, but some are more good looking than others. That is how I see subjective SQ hifi reviews.

 

The camera lens review is similar to the kind of reviews Hifi Choice do, where they publish measurements as well as opinion. I have had a look at trying to do study to see if there is any sort of link between how a hifi measures and reports of SQ. But so far it has proved to be hard with the information I can get hold of easily and frankly for free. (I am not going to susbscribe to Hifi Choice to sit for hours working out hundreds of measurements and how they compare to reports of SQ). What I can say is from the limited work I did do with review magazines was there is no apprent link. What I can say with a proper study of cable maker claims of measurements and SQ, is there is no link, except where there is attenuation affecting volume.

 

I do not know enough about cameras, so do measurements of lenses causally correlate to subjective reports of picture quality?

idc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 02/01/2008 - 15:36
Posts: 7765
RE: more 'snake oil'

pgoody wrote:

http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html

 

:wall:

 

http://www.slimmingsolutions.co.uk/slim-bomb.html

 

:wall: Smile

SteveR750's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/03/2005 - 23:46
Posts: 3080
RE: more 'snake oil'

idc wrote:

WinterRacer wrote:

I think it's reasonable to expect WHF to identify products that actually influence SQ, rather than identify products that that look like they affect SQ.  Am I alone or unusual in wanting this?

 

 

I supposed it is all about reporting on (reviewing) the subjective issue of SQ and not how that SQ is achieved. In any case, even I have listened to enough hifi to know irrespective of how it is made, some stuff is just not good enough and some stuff is superb.

 

Personally, I buy magazines to be primarily amused, something to read in between doing important real life stuff, or on the bog. I like the idea that someone else has heard / driven / played the things I'm interested in, and like IDC recognise journalists who think the way I do, and therefore have more relevence to me personally than others. To expect any magazine, in fact any consumer advice organisation (and I include the often misguidedly lame efforts by Which magazine) to be able to tell you what you should and should not get is naive perhaps? The only message worth listening to in WHF is go listen to stuff, and here's a great big list you might want to start with. They have the advantage of being able to listen to a lot more kit than the rest of us, but ultimately the magazine advice is no more or less relevant than these forum pages. 

chebby's picture
Online
Last seen: 46 min 12 sec ago
Joined: 02/06/2008 - 09:40
Posts: 16311
RE: more 'snake oil'

I've seen and heard all this before.

The bulging eyed crazies and the hi-fi 'flat earthers' from the 1980s are back. Just the message has changed.

The dogmatists, the drama queens and the hem kissing acolytes of self-elected manufacturer/gurus are back.

The hard-core attitudes of the... " If you can't hear the difference, it's not worth talking to you" variety are back. Except for one small difference. They've dropped the 't' from 'can't'.

I would go further and suggest that it's all cant ...

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

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 26/11/2010 - 21:44
Posts: 3019
RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil'

idc wrote:

I do not know enough about cameras, so do measurements of lenses causally correlate to subjective reports of picture quality?

 

Yes and no.  If you are a pixel peeping landscape photographer, yes they do.  If you are in to portrait, sport, or pretty much any other field then no.

 

A classic example:  The Canon 35mm f1.4L, reviews poorly.  soft in the corners, vignets strongly (2.4 stops wide open,  eek!), arguably best wedding lens on the market (for Canon shooters).  Stunning images.

idc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 02/01/2008 - 15:36
Posts: 7765
RE: more 'snake oil'

Thanks Paul, so just like hifi, there are some products just not up to the job, a few that are superb, the rest come in the middle and just as subjectively some people are better looking than others and some are right munters, some will still prefer the results of a rubbish lens. Is that about right?

BenLaw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 36 min ago
Joined: 21/11/2010 - 20:21
Posts: 6394
RE: more 'snake oil'

SteveR750 wrote:

doing important real life stuff, or on the bog.

 

Surely there is no more important real life stuff than that?

Craig M.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 2 hours ago
Joined: 20/03/2008 - 20:10
Posts: 2898
RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil'

Paul Hobbs wrote:

idc wrote:

I do not know enough about cameras, so do measurements of lenses causally correlate to subjective reports of picture quality?

 

Yes and no.  If you are a pixel peeping landscape photographer, yes they do.  If you are in to portrait, sport, or pretty much any other field then no.

I'd see that as just a yes.  The resulting difference might not be relevant, or noticeable, to an individual in any way, but there is an actual difference.  As opposed to one that requires your brain to play tricks on you.

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 26/11/2010 - 21:44
Posts: 3019
RE: more 'snake oil'

There are very few bad cameras on the market  at the mo (if you ignore the compact market), so the bar for average is set very high.  But with photography, certain measures don't necessarily mean a bad photo.  Poor chromatic aberration control will undoubtedly mean a poor shot, but poor edge detail or vigneting doesn't necessarily mean a poor photo.

 

With photography however, we have print size to make our errors stand out like a sore thumb.  I have a print above my mantle that is over a meter wide, so if there were errors, they would be obvious.   A lay person will struggle to hear a non linear response curve, but it is easy to spot purple fringing caused by CA.

 

I think in Photography there is a lot more balancing of compromise than in Hifi, because the measures are much more tangible.  You know that with your 50mm 1.4, if you shoot wide open its going to be a bit soft and dark in the corners, but that is ok as the super soft DoF pays off the compromise.  If you want to shoot 10fps then you are going to give up focus accuracy (or a couple of thousand pounds).

John Duncan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 22 hours ago
Joined: 08/01/2008 - 17:25
Posts: 23070
RE: more 'snake oil'

chebby wrote:

I've seen and heard all this before.

The bulging eyed crazies and the hi-fi 'flat earthers' from the 1980s are back. Just the message has changed.

The dogmatists, the drama queens and the hem kissing acolytes of self-elected manufacturer/gurus are back.

The hard-core attitudes of the... " If you can't hear the difference, it's not worth talking to you" variety are back. Except for one small difference. They've dropped the 't' from 'can't'.

I would go further and suggest that it's all cant ...

Ate you sure it's not the 'a'?

Moderator: john.duncan.whf at gmail dot com
Kit in state of flux

Pages

Log in or register to post comments