Anyone on WHFSV who wrote a sentence that bad, hanging and with no resolution whatsoever, would be given a stern talking-to by our leather-clad (well, occasionally), Stasi-like production desk team. And get a stern tutting from me.
I guess they wouldn't criticise somebody who starts sentences with a conjunction or uses words which don't exist in the English language?
PS An "ad hominem" argument is one which attack the opponent rather than the opponent's argument, generally because of an inability to counter the argument.
No prizes for guessing where this is going to go then folks....
Onkyo TX-NR818 / Tannoy Revolution DC4 (bi-amped)
AVI Laboratory Series CD Player
group hug anyone?
I thought you'd never ask.
Paul's opinion is his and he's allowed to have it. I don't think many would agree with him. the 50mm 1.4 is a much better lens.
Huh? Did you even read what I wrote? Much better than what? I didn't compare it to anything for starters.
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.
This is all I said about the 1.4. Which I have owned, twice, and love.
To back up my point, Here is a chart with vignetting for the 50mm f1.4, 2.7 stops at f1.4. That is a lot darker in the corners.
Here is an MTF chart showing lack of resolution in the corners wide open:
Very poor in the corners. (all charts from here: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1)
But the point I was making, is that this is the compromise you pay for the lovely DoF. Its a price I have paid willingly. Even though it tests so badly, it takes lovely images like this:
Paul's BR/805 system thread
(where the photos live) Paul's Flickr page
I've just had a look at your Flickr page and you've taken some fantastic photos. Great stuff!
PC > AVI Neutron Five 2.1
Sony NWZ-A847 64GB Walkman > Westone UM3x
Can we keep the lolz coming please?
My top lol so far is a poster explaining to an accomplished journo , who I presume is well versed in teh internet, what ad hom means.
Its a lolocaust.
...whilst using a number of ad hominem arguments against journalists in a 'they would say that wouldn't they' sort of way. Yes, I liked that one.
I am stealing 'lolocaust' for future use.
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
I've just had a look at your Flickr page and you've taken some fantastic photos.
You'd kind of hope so really...
No signature worth mentioning...
Oh I dunno - after all, just because somebody's been doing something for a living for a long time...
I think people are missing the point here. There's a reason why What Hi-Fi is the largest selling magazine in its class, no mean feat in an environment where some have shut shop. Why will it change the winning formula? Remember what happened to coke when they tried to change their formula?
As they say....don't teach daddy how to f***!
My Home Cinema Pioneer KRP 500A, Yamaha RX-V1900, MA Radius R225HD LCR, R90HD rears, AW12 sub, Panasonic BD60, PS3, Boxee Box, Sky HD, Boxee Box, Logitech Harmony One, Logitech PS3 Adapter, Sonos ZP90
Bedroom Samsung UE32C6510, PS3 slim white, Apple TV, Sonos S5, Sonos ZP90, Audioengine 2, Oppo OPDV971H
Miscellaneous: Synology DS212J + 2 X WD Red 2TB drives, WD 1TB NAS, Sonos ZoneBridge, BT HH3 as modem & AirPort Extreme router
I bow to your greater knowledge and expertise.
Actually I don't think I did. The point was about the credibility of WHiFi "experts" to judge equipment and I don't think I said they were bad people or dishonest or indeed anything like that. I did question Andrew's assertion that because they do a lot of it that makes them good at it, which is palpably not a sensible argument. I did put in a throwaway line about journalists but that surely isn't a pejorative term, although it obviously touched a nerve. You'd have thought I called them bankers (or whoever the current hate figures are).
The more I think about it the stronger is the analogy with "Top Gear". There is obviously a market for subjective reviews of things and WHiFi seems to be filling that niche. I guess that's fine but I remain concerned that some people might be spending large amounts of money on items which don't actually do anything on the basis of purely subjective opinions. Caveat emptor maybe?
I guess that's fine but I remain concerned that some people might be spending large amounts of money on items which don't actually do anything on the basis of purely subjective opinions.
WHF have always asserted that their reviews are their opinions, & readers should demo the products themselves prior to purchase.
Why is it palpably not a sensible argument ? Pls show your workings....
Actually I don't think I did. The point was about the credibility of WHiFi "experts" to judge equipment and I don't think I said they were bad people or dishonest or indeed anything like that. I did question Andrew's assertion that because they do a lot of it that makes them good at it, which is palpably not a sensible argument.
As a matter of interest, what do you think it takes to make someone expert enough to judge hifi, as there are no specific degrees with which to qualify you for it?
Simply understanding the engineering behind it, doesn't necessarily mean that you would make a good judge, or have the literary skills to write about it. Most "papers" written by engineers are almost unreadable by the ordinary layman.
As I see it, the person who has the best hope of judging how well something performs, is somebody with a lot of experience of listening to a huge variety of kit, and then has the ability to describe the sound as accurately as possible, while trying to keep personal bias out of the equation.
If a reviewer loves the sound but describes it accurately, it should still be possible to get a reasonable guide as to whether it will suit....even if you are likely to disagree them about what "good" should sound like . After all, magazine reviews should only be part of the process of drawing up a short list.
"Everything has been said before, but since nobody listens we have to keep going back and beginning all over again." André Gide
Only WHF filling the niche for a reviewer's thoughts? David Price and co are doing alright at Hi Fi CHoice, Noel Keywood doing the same with his team at Hi Fi World. There's Hi-Fi+, Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, ToneAudio (an online only title), the last three being US titles, but readily available via Zinio.
This is what narks me about this petty little crusade the naysayers appear to have taken up, it's focused on one title and it's incredibly unfair. People passing comments on the qualities of the journalism, the experience, the supposed "snake-oil" conspiracy to empty the pockets of the unwary...please.
You guys go off with your actives, your £30 supermarket DVD players and £1.50 optical cables and have a nice life. Thanks, but I can do my own reading-up, make my own choices, form my own conclusions and really don't need to be told that, hey, I'm getting it all wrong by anyone. WHF (and its ilk) helps me do that - and sometimes I just need to read what somebody else thought about a product. I can do the rest.
© 2013 Haymarket Publishing