75 posts / 0 new
Last post
woodbino's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 13/10/2013 - 11:29
Posts: 4
so unscientific!

I find some of these reviews a joke!

 

Why do what HiFi not do blinded equipment tests? That's the only real scientific way. I bet most people could be fooled into thinking they're listening to thousand pound systems by a cheap but decent system picked up from Tesco!

simonlewis's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 15/04/2008 - 10:17
Posts: 3480
RE: so unscientific!

You are an expert are you and seen the reviews taking place.  :quest:

TrevC's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 12/06/2013 - 10:07
Posts: 788
RE: so unscientific!

As well as listening tests they need to do some electronic testing. It's important to check that an amplifier meets its specification, how well it performs into low impedance loads, stuff like that. Loudspeakers measured for frequency response etc would be helpful too, something like the Stereophile tests.

 

Dougal1331's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 1 week ago
Joined: 30/12/2007 - 20:45
Posts: 623
RE: so unscientific!

Well you always have the option of ignoring them, rather than coming onto their FREE website and demeaning them.

 

professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 41 min ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11026
RE: so unscientific!

TrevC wrote:

Loudspeakers measured for frequency response etc would be helpful too, something like the Stereophile tests.

I believe Stereophile do those kinds of tests, so that might well be the magazine you're after...

The owls are not what they seem...

namefail's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 31/07/2013 - 19:30
Posts: 194
I don’t normally feel the

I don’t normally feel the need to jump to the support of .coms/publishers and I’m not here, however, in the 20 odd years of on and off reading what Hi-Fi I’ve never felt their journalistic approach lacking. The reviews have always been short and sweet affairs, why don’t you direct your comment to the editor.

Singslinger's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 31/07/2010 - 07:42
Posts: 685
RE: so unscientific!

:wave: :wave:

TrevC's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 12/06/2013 - 10:07
Posts: 788
RE: so unscientific!

professorhat wrote:

TrevC wrote:

Loudspeakers measured for frequency response etc would be helpful too, something like the Stereophile tests.

I believe Stereophile do those kinds of tests, so that might well be the magazine you're after...

Silly sausage.

 

namefail's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 31/07/2013 - 19:30
Posts: 194
RE: so unscientific!

Singslinger wrote:

:wave: :wave:

 

Ah, the 1967 Christmas #1.

Paul.'s picture
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 19 min ago
Joined: 26/11/2010 - 21:44
Posts: 2980
RE: so unscientific!

probably because the writers don't get paid enough to be "blinded".  How do you suggest we do it, hot pokers?  Dog poo?  Using lathe equipment without suitable protection?

namefail's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 31/07/2013 - 19:30
Posts: 194
RE: so unscientific!

To miss-quote Thomas Dolby, they should be blinded with Science.

The_Lhc's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 min 45 sec ago
Joined: 16/10/2008 - 13:23
Posts: 12906
RE: so unscientific!

TrevC wrote:
As well as listening tests they need to do some electronic testing. It's important to check that an amplifier meets its specification, how well it performs into low impedance loads, stuff like that. Loudspeakers measured for frequency response etc would be helpful too, something like the Stereophile tests.

There used to be any number of magazine that did tests exactly like that, nearly all of them have gone bust which tells you everything you need to know about the readership for that level of detail. The majority of people aren't interested, which is why WHF don't bother with it.

professorhat's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 41 min ago
Joined: 28/12/2007 - 11:34
Posts: 11026
RE: so unscientific!

TrevC wrote:

professorhat wrote:

TrevC wrote:

Loudspeakers measured for frequency response etc would be helpful too, something like the Stereophile tests.

I believe Stereophile do those kinds of tests, so that might well be the magazine you're after...

Silly sausage.

Cheeky monkey.

 

The owls are not what they seem...

BenLaw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 18 hours ago
Joined: 21/11/2010 - 20:21
Posts: 6319
RE: so unscientific!

professorhat wrote:

TrevC wrote:

professorhat wrote:

TrevC wrote:

Loudspeakers measured for frequency response etc would be helpful too, something like the Stereophile tests.

I believe Stereophile do those kinds of tests, so that might well be the magazine you're after...

Silly sausage.

Cheeky monkey.

 

 

Said in your best Johnny Vegas voice. 

TrevC's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 12/06/2013 - 10:07
Posts: 788
RE: so unscientific!

The_Lhc wrote:

TrevC wrote:
As well as listening tests they need to do some electronic testing. It's important to check that an amplifier meets its specification, how well it performs into low impedance loads, stuff like that. Loudspeakers measured for frequency response etc would be helpful too, something like the Stereophile tests.

There used to be any number of magazine that did tests exactly like that, nearly all of them have gone bust which tells you everything you need to know about the readership for that level of detail. The majority of people aren't interested, which is why WHF don't bother with it.

Yet they do bother "listening" to mains leads and extension blocks, which removes all credibility.

Covenanter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 2 min ago
Joined: 20/07/2012 - 10:16
Posts: 1283
Whatever!

I think I've used the "Top gear " analogy before and I think it is valid. There are no tv programmes now that review cars seriously (that I am aware of) and the most popular one recommends stuff on the basis of things like they wouldn't buy a car you can fit golf clubs into. People want entertainment not information.
It's slightly different in hifi because IMO people want to have the mystique of hifi enhanced not knocked down by scientific analysis. They like reviews which use mystical language because that's the way they think about hifi and anyway who wants to read reviews which say "we've done the tests and those cables you spent £xxx on are no better then bell wire"? Journalists write stuff that sells magazines and newspapers. Why do you think the Daily Express keeps going on about Princess Diana when the poor woman has been dead for years and years? It's simply that it's what their readership want.
So it's our fault! They write what we want to read.
Chris

Marantz PM8005 / SA8005 / KEF R700s / AKG K702

Pages

Log in or register to post comments