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

Andrew Everard wrote:

Thompsonuxb wrote:
I'd be happy to take part, I'm gonna email your mate.

Jolly good: as both I and my colleague have said, all are welcome to apply. But really we have better things to do than invite readers in for these events at their own expense, then make them look daft in print.

 

Why would anybody look daft? Blind tests would answer the questions posed, and both the participants and readers would benefit from knowing whether any differences perceived were imagined or real. Surely nobody would object to that?

 

Thompsonuxb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 19/02/2012 - 14:24
Posts: 919
RE: more 'snake oil'

I'm sorry you feel that - that would be the outcome, I genuinly don't and its a test that at some point will have to be done to justify the other test you do if for no other reason than to give you and your readers a point of reference of how the mind can affect what we believe we hear.

But from one persons feedback on what a day at WHF hq is like I still think most would consider it a fine day out, I mean  honestly, you give them biscuits....for free!

steve_1979's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 14/07/2010 - 21:04
Posts: 3863
RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil'

Andrew Everard wrote:

Thompsonuxb wrote:
Maybe one day WHF could do a 'test'.... a blind test were they change nothing, 3 tracks  '3 systems' played in varuious order but everything stays the same, surfaces, interconnects etc and see which system wins 1, 2 or 3 and publish their findings.

And all that would achieve would be to make the reader-participants look foolish, and discourage others from offering their services for the feature.

I agree with Thompsonuxb. This would make an interesting test and good starting point for an interesting discussion topic.

I don't think that it would make the participants look foolish or discourage others from offering their services for the future either.

Hi-Fi - Epiphany Acoustics EHP-02Di > AVI DM5

Head-Fi - Epiphany Acoustics EHP-O2Di > Sennheisser HD700

Portable - Sony NWZ-A847 > Westone UM3x

BenLaw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 56 sec ago
Joined: 21/11/2010 - 20:21
Posts: 6359
RE: more 'snake oil'

Thompsonuxb wrote:

I'm sorry you feel that - that would be the outcome, I genuinly don't and its a test that at some point will have to be done to justify the other test you do if for no other reason than to give you and your readers a point of reference of how the mind can affect what we believe we hear.

But from one persons feedback on what a day at WHF hq is like I still think most would consider it a fine day out, I mean  honestly, you give them biscuits....for free!

 

'Have to be done'? I really don't think so...

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

I read the first 2 pages, quickly got bored, skipped to P5 and am shocked it's become yet another "WHF should behave like New Scientist" thread. Some of you guys are completely missing the point of music. I know it's fun to debate the pedantic detail between us, but to expect a leisure magazine such as WHF to take some these quadrupal independant third party statistically validated blind test challenges seriously, let alone the average reader being interested! Unless of course some of you are the editorial staff, and it's a double bluff.

 

the record spot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 days ago
Joined: 13/10/2007 - 14:36
Posts: 9252
RE: more 'snake oil'

CnoEvil wrote:

My Linn DS sounds noticeably better with Black Ravioli under the chassis!

 

I'm significantly better with some cooked ravioli in mine!   Smile

CnoEvil's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 21/08/2009 - 18:01
Posts: 12400
RE: more 'snake oil'

the record spot wrote:

CnoEvil wrote:

My Linn DS sounds noticeably better with Black Ravioli under the chassis!

I'm significantly better with some cooked ravioli in mine!   Smile

Yes Max! Wink

"We should no more let numbers define audio quality than we should let chemical analysis be the arbiter of fine wines."  Nelson Pass

toyota man's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 22/04/2009 - 22:55
Posts: 1603
RE: more 'snake oil'

SteveR750 wrote:

I read the first 2 pages, quickly got bored, skipped to P5 and am shocked it's become yet another "WHF should behave like New Scientist" thread. Some of you guys are completely missing the point of music. I know it's fun to debate the pedantic detail between us, but to expect a leisure magazine such as WHF to take some these quadrupal independant third party statistically validated blind test challenges seriously, let alone the average reader being interested! Unless of course some of you are the editorial staff, and it's a double bluff.

 

+1

Musical Fidelity M6500i Musical FidelityM6 CDP ATC SCM 40s Cord Chameleon plus XLRs Tellurium Q Black speaker cables

Jonathan Evans's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 58 min ago
Joined: 07/01/2008 - 16:15
Posts: 211
RE: more 'snake oil' RE: more 'snake oil'

Covenanter wrote:

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.

If those are your conditions, Chris, I fear we won't be seeing you down here. That is not the point of these days, as I explained.  (Although you're still very welcome to come and see us for a BQ - I'm sure you'd find it interesting to see how we work.)

You'll be aware, no doubt, that WHF has never done testing like that. As has been mentioned or at least hinted at a couple of times on this thread, what we try to do is give an informed and experienced opinion on the equipment we review, in as real-world a way as possible. And through that help people come up with a shortlist of likely products that will suit them.

Our team has many, many years of cumulative experience behind them, and we are as consistent as we can be in testing all the kit that comes through our doors: everything is reviewed in-house by our full-time team; everything is looked at by at least two, and often more, members of the team; all reviews are then checked to ensure that what's written up matches what was decided at the reviewing stage. That way we have at least some system of checks and balances to allow for the frailties of human nature.

But no, it's not bench tested at any stage.

So yes, ours is a subjective rather than an objective opinion. But it's one with decades of experience behind it. 

Call The Big Question a 'piece of puff' if you like, but it seems to be quite good at piquing the interest of people on the forums, at least... 

 

(Sorry this response is so delayed, by the way: I had to get my daughter to her saxophone lesson, walk the dog and watch Jules Holland, so I've only just caught up with the thread)

Managing editor, What Hi-Fi? Sound and Vision

Crossie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 5 hours ago
Joined: 04/08/2009 - 13:08
Posts: 558
RE: more 'snake oil'

No one is asking WHF to become a science journal but It would nice to see just one 'Big Question' approached using a more rigorous double blind approach. I would be quite happy to take part and would not feel daft if I heard differences between identical systems.

This has been debated many times on the forum. Why not settle the issue by giving rigorous testing a go then we can all move on...what is there to lose?

moon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 5 months ago
Joined: 10/11/2011 - 09:14
Posts: 861
RE: more 'snake oil'

Crossie wrote:

This has been debated many times on the forum. Why not settle the issue by giving rigorous testing a go then we can all move on...what is there to lose?

 

I think the problem being that some people will never ever " move on " regardless of the outcome of any tests.

Personally I made a decision to only use basic accessories. Amp on a shelf, bog standard USB cable, multi strand generic speaker cable. Altering these components may or may not make a difference. I believe the differences they make are probably very small say compared to room acoustics, speaker choice, record or CD ..e.t.c.

 

nopiano's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 34 min ago
Joined: 15/02/2009 - 19:25
Posts: 1467
RE: more 'snake oil'

I'm with Jonathan on this, and like several others here I had a very enjoyable day at WHF Towers last year at a TBQ session, so I 'get' where the reviewers are coming from.  Science has no place in listening at home, any more than it does at a gig or in a concert hall.  It can be enlightening, but is no subsitute for simply listening.

Many moons ago I worked in a hi-fi shop as a 'Saturday boy', for over a decade up to the launch of CD.  There is no doubt in my mind that you can 'test' things 'til you are blue in the face bit nothing beats experience and familiarity.  My old boss, the store manager, could tell if I had changed the cables from outside the dem room door, and we all got to know the sound of the brands we sold most: NAD, Leak, Quad, Harman/Kardon, Dual, KEF, Tandberg, etc. 

Cables and tables were not so faddish then but they certainly made a difference, as did basics like speaker stands and proper positioning, not to say setting up turntables properly (most people's prime source before CD).  That is why a dealer is still a good guide, along with reviews, but only you can decide what you like.  And in my experience, pretty much everything makes a difference in audio - it is mostly a matter of deciding if you like it or not.   

Krell CD and amp, Michell/Rega/Grado record player, Hitachi and Sony tuners, Nakamichi cassette, SBT streamer, Sonus faber spkrs.  Sony and Samsung BDP & TVs. Qobuz > iPad > AudioPro Allroom Air One

ID.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 11 hours ago
Joined: 22/02/2010 - 13:12
Posts: 1511
RE: more 'snake oil'

nopiano wrote:

 Science has no place in listening at home, any more than it does at a gig or in a concert hall.  It can be enlightening, but is no subsitute for simply listening.

BRB, going get up and have a boogey to how my speakers measure  Dance 4

TBH, the whole style of what hifi doesn't really get into the scientific side at all, nor does it pretend to be anything other than subjective reviews by experiences reviewers. Making the big question sessions more scientifically rigorous would kinf of defeat the purpose of them which is, to my understanding, a bit of fun and insight, although I'm sure that some readers, or at least some forumites, wouldn't mind that.

Stuff.

relocated's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 20/01/2012 - 12:40
Posts: 1039
RE: more 'snake oil'

Crossie wrote:

No one is asking WHF to become a science journal but It would nice to see just one 'Big Question' approached using a more rigorous double blind approach. I would be quite happy to take part and would not feel daft if I heard differences between identical systems.

This has been debated many times on the forum. Why not settle the issue by giving rigorous testing a go then we can all move on...what is there to lose?

What would be lost to the magazine could be huge.  IF the test proved that people really thought that there were differences when only a single system were played 3 times then subjective 'testing' should be dead in the water.  Why would anyone then purchase a 'subjective testing' magazine to aid their interest and purchases?

To go back a few pages, I think you can over-estimate the intelligence of the general public.  How many times have we read about people putting together a system made up of '5 star' products and being thoroughly unhappy with the sound that it produces?

Apple lossless - Netgear Nighthawk - ATV3 - AVI ADM 40.  

AVI ADM 9T used in my wife's system

chebby's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 43 min ago
Joined: 02/06/2008 - 09:40
Posts: 16135
RE: more 'snake oil'

relocated wrote:
Why would anyone then purchase a 'subjective testing' magazine to aid their interest and purchases?

You have answered your own question...

relocated wrote:
...I think you can over-estimate the intelligence of the general public.

I should say I don't agree with your question or your answer.

Anyhow, WHF? staff have already told us many times - even in this thread - that their reviews are subjective so it's pointless devising a test to prove it!

 

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

Pages

Log in or register to post comments