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

Worth a laugh though, I reckon. I mean, come on - who wouldn't want to check out the discernible differences between £5 and £500 hdmi cables?  Or hear the pure awesome that is the reasonably priced (only half a kidney per metre) new speaker wire made of angel eyelash-fibre, with less than zero percent whathaveyou?

And anyway, here's a true fact: my opinion is correct. I have a team of monkeys working round the clock to back that up too.

professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11024
RE: more 'snake oil'

cheeseboy wrote:

professorhat wrote:

Well, if people are unable to differentiate opinion from fact, then there's not much that can be done about that. I've never seen any review in a reputable magazine start describing their opinion of something as "It's a fact that..." . With that in mind, the impact of what you're saying is, magazines must start every sentence which isn't a fact as "In our opinion", in order to make this clear?

sorry, guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one as I have read different magazines that do present opinion as fact.

I don't see that we have to disagree at all. If I read a review that specifically presented an opinion as a fact, I would also disagree with it (even if I actually agreed with their opinion). My point is, I haven't seen such a review that I can remember (in a reputable magazine / online publication). They may present their opinion in a certain manner e.g. "the sound of Angel was clearly superior to that of (b)", but that doesn't mean they are saying it's a fact, it means they are offering their opinion that sound Angel was clearly superior to that of sound (b).

Which comes back to my point, are you therefore saying that all reviewers should be required to put in "In my opinion" or "In our opinion" in front of every sentence they write in order to point out the obvious?

 

Jonathan Evans's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 19 hours ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 16:15
Posts: 210
RE: more 'snake oil'

You probably won't be surprised to see me backing up the prof on this one!

That our reviews are merely our opinions is implicit by the nature of the magazine. And, as prof says, we simply don't have the space to insert "in our opinion" or "we found" etc etc at the start of every sentence. Besides which, that would be incredibly tedious to read.

A word on the Big Question. These are clearly not scientific tests, nor are they meant to be. As has been said in previous posts, they are more the starting off point for discussions on, hopefully, interesting topics. We feel that it's entertaining for the reader to see other opinions in the magazine than just our own.

 

Of course, the panel is rather thrown in at the deep end, with no experience of our listening rooms, the equipment used, or quite possibly the music listened to. And the testing goes on for only two or three hours. So not long.

Our technical editor Ketan can be quite intimidating, too! Wink

To subject the panel to rigorous scientific conditions on top of all that might make the experience a little more intimidating and rather less enjoyable than it should be.

Also we're not in the business of making people look foolish. The Big Question needs to be an interesting, entertaining day for those people attending, as well as a starting point for discussions. So please don't read into it that we are claiming any of the results as fact.

Indeed, quite often we as a magazine do not concur with the panel's opinion.The copy is, though, as I hope those attending will confirm, a faithful representation of those opinions expressed on the day.

Oh, and (plug, plug) anyone is welcome to attend, be you skeptic, cynic or believer.

Feel free to email me if you'd like to go on the shortlist for the next Big Question we do. I've got no date set yet, but I will get back in contact before I post a general forum free for all.

 

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

Please do a Big Question with three women.

 

 

Andrew Everard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 30/05/2007 - 12:34
Posts: 28885
RE: more 'snake oil'

Biggerboat wrote:
Please do a Big Question with three women.

Because...?

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

I can think of a couple of reasons.

ellisdj's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: 11/12/2008 - 17:55
Posts: 1322
RE: more 'snake oil'

Hi Jonathan You managed to translate my barely English answers extremely well, they are very true to day and what was said

 

i really enjoyed the day and have taken a lot away with me in regards to my own system and the quality of what is printed by the magazine, and the brains /eyes and ears behind it so thanks again 

 

The only main benefit i can think of using 3 women would be a nicer photo section for the mag Smile

 

 

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

Dude, women also have opinions these days.

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12848
RE: more 'snake oil'

Yeah, dude, don't you know nuffin? Women have had opinions for like, years! Since at least, err, 1996, I think. Pay attention man, they're not just nice to look at anymore and anyone that disagrees with this is a total sexist innit?

Andrew Everard's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 30/05/2007 - 12:34
Posts: 28885
RE: more 'snake oil'

Anyone applying to be part of TBQ will be equally welcome.

relocated's picture
Offline
Last seen: 14 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 20/01/2012 - 12:40
Posts: 943
RE: more 'snake oil'

Biggerboat wrote:

Dude, women also have opinions these days.

AND don't they have better high frequency hearing than chaps?

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

relocated wrote:

Biggerboat wrote:

Dude, women also have opinions these days.

AND don't they have better high frequency hearing than chaps?

 

True.

I really think having 3 women do the test would be an instructive thing.

Apparently women even listen to music and watch TVs sometimes!

ellisdj's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 9 hours ago
Joined: 11/12/2008 - 17:55
Posts: 1322
RE: more 'snake oil'

Think my comment or choice of words might have taken out of context there - I meant the reason why it would be better, by that any different - I was certainly not implying any worse due to sexuality 

 

i was actually making a joke of my photo -that is what I was getting at.

nothing aimed at the photographer who was excellent  - he is only as good as his subject Wink

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 21 hours ago
Joined: 26/11/2010 - 21:44
Posts: 2947
RE: more 'snake oil'

Biggerboat wrote:

Apparently women even listen to music and watch TVs sometimes!

But they don't seem to care what on for the most part.  

I think its an evolutionary thing, like male penguins collecting rocks.

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1204
RE: more 'snake oil'

Jonathan_E wrote:

You probably won't be surprised to see me backing up the prof on this one!

That our reviews are merely our opinions is implicit by the nature of the magazine. And, as prof says, we simply don't have the space to insert "in our opinion" or "we found" etc etc at the start of every sentence. Besides which, that would be incredibly tedious to read.

A word on the Big Question. These are clearly not scientific tests, nor are they meant to be. As has been said in previous posts, they are more the starting off point for discussions on, hopefully, interesting topics. We feel that it's entertaining for the reader to see other opinions in the magazine than just our own.

 

Of course, the panel is rather thrown in at the deep end, with no experience of our listening rooms, the equipment used, or quite possibly the music listened to. And the testing goes on for only two or three hours. So not long.

Our technical editor Ketan can be quite intimidating, too! Wink

To subject the panel to rigorous scientific conditions on top of all that might make the experience a little more intimidating and rather less enjoyable than it should be.

Also we're not in the business of making people look foolish. The Big Question needs to be an interesting, entertaining day for those people attending, as well as a starting point for discussions. So please don't read into it that we are claiming any of the results as fact.

Indeed, quite often we as a magazine do not concur with the panel's opinion.The copy is, though, as I hope those attending will confirm, a faithful representation of those opinions expressed on the day.

Oh, and (plug, plug) anyone is welcome to attend, be you skeptic, cynic or believer.

Feel free to email me if you'd like to go on the shortlist for the next Big Question we do. I've got no date set yet, but I will get back in contact before I post a general forum free for all.

 

So it's just a piece of "puff" then!  The problem is that there are doubtless some of your readers who believe what they read and possibly spend a lot of their hard-earned money on that basis.  Might I suggest that you owe your readers a bit more than that!

My cynical side says that there is no incentive for the industry (and that includes the magazines) to find definitive answers because they would have less to sell / write about.  Maybe I'm being too harsh but ...

Chris

PS I'd be happy to take part in a listening test but only if it were scientifically conducted, ie double blind and statistically significant.

Pages

Log in or register to post comments