WHS&V testing methods
Further to my points over in the 'Mains conditioner' thread/hifi section I changed my mind and can now be bothered to post here ... on topic;
Why do you not use industry standard calibration equipment to set-up sets/projectors? It very much seems you calibrate by eye which is in most cases inaccurate. Most other publications use approved standards before they evaluate TV's. It would clearly give a more level field. Further more you could then give your findings and suggest settings, something many here asked you for but you seem cagey to oblige. Another bonus would be slightly more technical info as with regards to the out of box settings and how far they deviate from the suggested Rec709/D65 standards and whether it is possible to accurately adjust.
The hard/software is surely not too expensive and a basic calibration can be carried out in a relatively short period of time, time probably well spent considering the amount of sets you review.
JohnDuncan:
Sorry JD, the link does'nt work. They may be but it does'nt seem like they are using any professional equipment to calibrate before testing. Might be wrong though but I'm sure friendly AE will post an answer soon.
My Spathiphyllum looks much better in white pot ...
Well we use a suite of set-up tools, including full THX Optimizer (with glasses), Spyder and DVE, as well as the ISF-trained expertise of the staff.
Apart from the latter - which you can access via this site (Forums and How To videos, as well as the reviews) - all the rest are also at the disposal of every person who also buys that set/projector, so they could potentially achieve the same level of performance.
We also, as have previously stated, have a range of test rooms at our disposal, including a light-free room with black walls - all the better to assess performance in a range of lighting conditions and push the products really hard. No other UK magazine/website has such facilities (and i'd love to know your sources for what 'most other magazine' do, too).
Hm, it doesn't does it? And doesn't appear to want to be fixed. Search here for "ISF certified".
Your Spathiphyllum looks rude, whatever pot you put it in.
Clare Newsome:Well we use a suite of set-up tools, including full THX Optimizer (with glasses), Spyder and DVE, as well as the ISF-trained expertise of the staff.
Apart from the latter - which you can access via this site (Forums and How To videos, as well as the reviews) - all the rest are also at the disposal of every person who also buys that set/projector, so they could potentially achieve the same level of performance.
We also, as have previously stated, have a range of test rooms at our disposal, including a light-free room with black walls - all the better to assess performance in a range of lighting conditions and push the products really hard. No other UK magazine/website has such facilities (and i'd love to know your sources for what 'most other magazine' do, too).
I've never seen any technical test results/suggested settings or statement about where particular sets deviate from approved standard and wheter they can be adjusted accurately.
Perhaps I look in the wrong place. I can only assume you have the issue of cramming as much product review in a mag as possible which leaves you without the space needed for a technical section. Still, it would be more helpful than a well intended objective review, no matter whether done by 'ISF trained' staff or not but without any data to back it up.
As with regards to other publications such as the Audio/Visual section of Hi-Fi News or Home Cinema to name two, they give additional data which can be useful in determining suitability of a product even if it is no substitute for seeing/auditioning.
Well, we could go down the route of multipage reviews of single very expensive products, I guess, but I really enjoy my job too much to wish on WHFSV the kind of sales figures the titles you quote manage.
I think we get the balance just about right for our audience.
Drummerman, if you prefer the views of one person and a machine over an expert team working in a dedicated reviewing environment, using a range of standard testing tools, then maybe we're not the magazine (or Forum) for you.
Clare Newsome:Drummerman, if you prefer the views of one person and a machine over an expert team working in a dedicated reviewing environment, using a range of standard testing tools, then maybe we're not the magazine (or Forum) for you.
Rest assured you're not the only magazine (or forum) I use and yes, results of a machine are more accurate. Beats me why you can't include some tech spec in addition to your reviews but hey, your sales figures are proof you're right and can't improve on your current format AE.
We're always looking at ways of evolving and improving our reviews and format (hence this website, for one!), but until it's machines 'watching/listening' to products we'd prefer to stick to the 'reviews by humans, for humans' approach (within a strict testing methodology).
(PS Those machines are programmed by humans, too - how do you test the testing machine?)
With a testing machine testing machine?
Clare Newsome:We're always looking at ways of evolving and improving our reviews and format (hence this website, for one!), but until it's machines 'watching/listening' to products we'd prefer to stick to the 'reviews by humans, for humans' approach (within a strict testing methodology).
(PS Those machines are programmed by humans, too - how do you test the testing machine?)
Appreciate your and AE's replies even if I can't agree about possible problems by using one common, approved calibration format for all visual products before evaluation, they are a help and not a hindrance, same with tech specs.
Anyway, I think enough said about the subject. I was just curious. Cheers
Though of course THX and Spyder ARE common, standardised set-up tools, and ISF standardised methodology. Oh, plus we add tech-specs to every single review - available in Buyer's Guide here in-mag and here online.
But if you think enough has been said otherwise, so be it.
Answer in this thread (two WHF staff are ISF certified).
Now, those fingerprints......
CA StreamMagic 6 | CA 751BD | CA 651A | PMC DB1i
Moderator. mail: john.duncan.whf at the mail of g dot com